G.R. No. 191025. July 31, 2013.

* ALPADI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a business entity

RHODORA PRIETO, petitioner, vs. ALPADI DEVELOPMENT duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of the
CORPORATION, respondent. Philippines, and doing business in said City, in the following
manner, to wit: the said accused being then employed as cashier and
accounting clerk of the said corporation, collected and received
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on
rental payments from the different tenants of Alpadi Development
Certiorari; The reglementary period for filing a Petition for Review on
Corporation in the total amount of P544,858.64, under the express
Certiorari is set forth in Rule 45, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.—The
obligation on the part of said accused to account for and remit
reglementary period for filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari is set forth
immediately the deposits and rentals due to said corporation, but the
in Rule 45, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, which provides:  SEC. 2. Time for
said accused, once in the possession of the said amount, far from
filing; extension.—The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from
complying with her aforesaid obligation, failed and
notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the _______________
denial of the petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due 2 Id., at pp. 34-35.
time after notice of judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full 3 Id., at pp. 81-83.
4 Id., at pp. 84-86.
payment of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before 5 Id., at p. 37.
the expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for
justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to 739
file the petition.
Same; Same; Same; Time and again the Supreme Court has declared
that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. — VOL. 702, JULY 31, 2013 739
Time and again the Court has declared that the right to appeal is neither a Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
natural right nor a part of due process. It
_______________ Corporation
* FIRST DIVISION.
refused and still fails and refuses to do so, despite repeated demands
737 made upon her to that effect and instead, with intent to defraud,
unfaithfulness and grave abuse of confidence, misappropriated,
misapplied and converted the same to her own personal use and
VOL. 702, JULY 31, benefit, to the damage and prejudice of Alpadi Developement
Corporation represented by Angeles Manzano, in the aforesaid sum
2013 37
of P544,858.64, Philippine Currency.
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
Corporation Trial ensued and the prosecution presented its evidence which
is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the
included, among other things, the testimonies of Angeles A. Manzano
manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to (Manzano), Office Manager of ADC and MBI, and Jaime Clamar, Jr.
avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. (Clamar), Private Investigator; Prieto’s “kusang-loob na salaysay”
Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. executed before Clamar on January 3, 1995, in which Prieto admitted
Same; Same; Same; Anyone seeking exemption from the application of collecting rental payments from the tenants of ADC and MBI,
the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of proving the making it appear through fraudulent deposit slips that she deposited
existence of exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such deviation.— her collections in the bank accounts of ADC and MBI, and actually
It must be stressed that anyone seeking exemption from the application of the using said collections to pay for her household expenses and to lend
reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of proving the
existence of exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such deviation.
to employees of Tri-Tran Transit; the fraudulent deposit slips;
Parties praying for the liberal interpretation of the rules must be able to hurdle Clamar’s Investigation Report dated July 18, 1995 recommending
that heavy burden of proving that they deserve an exceptional treatment. It that Prieto be charged in court for estafa and be made to pay the
was never the Court’s intent “to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate amount she misappropriated; computation of Prieto’s
the rules with impunity.” Unfortunately for Prieto, she was unable to unremitted/undeposited rental collections prepared by Lourdes P.
discharge this burden of proof. Roque, Supervising Director, and Manzano, Office Manager, with
the conforme of Prieto; and Affidavit dated December 16, 1994 of
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of Harry Chua Ga Haou, a tenant of MBI, stating that Prieto, personally
the Court of Appeals. and by a handwritten note, requested that rental payments be made in
   The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court. cash rather than checks.
  Barroga Nario & Associates Law Office for petitioner. After resting its case, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of
  Padilla Asuncion Bote-Veguillas Matta Cariño Law Offices for Evidence, which was admitted by the RTC in an Order dated
respondent. December 13, 2004. Prieto, represented by the Public Attorney’s
Office (PAO), asked for leave of court to file a Demurrer to
RESOLUTION Evidence. The RTC gave Prieto 20 days from December 13, 2004
within which to file her Demurrer to Evidence. The 20th day of the
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: period was January 2, 2005, a Sunday, so Prieto could still file her
In this Petition for Review· on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Demurrer to Evidence on
Rules of Court, petitioner Rhodora Prieto (Prieto) seeks to annul and 740
set aside the Decision  dated August 28, 2009 and
1
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 20-32; penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate 0 ANNOTATED
Justices Remedios A.Salazar-Fernando and Isaias P. Dicdican, concurring.
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
738 Corporation
73 SUPREME COURT REPORTS January 3, 2005, a Monday. Records show that Prieto filed her
Demurrer to Evidence only on January 13, 2005.
8 ANNOTATED
In her Demurrer to Evidence, Prieto argued that she could not be
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development convicted for estafa because (1) as an employee, her custody of the
Corporation rental collections was precarious and for a temporary purpose or short
Resolution  dated November 12, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
2
period only, and the juridical or constructive possession of the said
G.R. SP No. 91714, which (1) annulled and set aside, on the ground collections remained in her employer; and (2) there was no showing
of grave abuse of discretion, the Orders dated March 8, 2005  and 3
that demand was made upon Prieto to deliver or return the rental
August 8, 2005  of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch
4
collections to ADC.
8, in Criminal Case No. 97-157752, granting Prieto’s Demurrer to In an Order dated March 8, 2005, the RTC granted Prieto’s
Evidence; and (2) reinstated and remanded said criminal case to the Demurrer to Evidence, reasoning as follows:
Accused being an employee of the complaining corporation,
RTC for further trial. cannot be convicted of estafa because when accused received the
Prieto was employed as an accounting clerk and cashier of the rental payments from the tenants, she only received the material and
Alpadi Group of Companies, composed of respondent Alpadi physical possession of the money and the juridical possession
Development Corporation (ADC), Manufacturers Building, remains in the owner. The position of accused is likened to that of a
Incorporated (MBI), and Asian Ventures Corporation (AVC). ADC bank teller receiving money from the depositors.
and MBI are both engaged in the business of leasing office spaces. The Supreme Court ruled in the case GUZMAN vs. CA (G.R.
Prieto was charged before the RTC with the crime of estafa in an No. L-9572[,] July31, 1956) that:
“The case cited by the Court of Appeals (People v. Locson,
Information  dated May 13, 1997 that reads:
5

57 Phil., 325), in support of its theory that appellant only

That in or about and during the year from 1992 up to 1994,
had the material possession of the merchandise he was
inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did
selling for his principal, or their proceeds, is not in point. In
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
said case, the receiving teller of a bank who
 misappropriated money received by him for a bank, was
held guilty of qualified theft on the theory that the Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
possession of the teller is the possession of the bank. There Corporation
is an essential distinction between the possession by a tionally pointed out that Prieto’s Demurrer to Evidence was filed
receiving teller of funds received from third persons paid to
the bank, and an agent who receives the proceeds of sales
beyond the 20-day period granted by the RTC.
of merchandise delivered to him in agency by his principal. Prieto, through the PAO, filed her Comment, arguing that: (1) the
In the former case, payment by third persons to the teller is Petition for Certiorari of ADC was not anchored on any of the
payment to the bank itself; the teller is a mere custodian or grounds provided under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and failed to
741 expressly indicate that there was no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, available; (2) ADC
VOL. 702, JULY 31, 2013 741 had no personality to file the Petition because only the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) may represent the Republic of the
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development Philippines or the People, in criminal proceedings, before the Court
Corporation of Appeals and the Supreme Court; and (3) the grant of the demurrer
keeper of the funds received, and has no independent right to evidence dismissed the criminal case and was equivalent to
or title to retain or possess the same as against the bank. An Prieto’s acquittal, from which no appeal could be taken, as it would
agent, on the other hand, can even assert, as against his own place Prieto in double jeopardy.
principal, an independent, autonomous, right to retain the The OSG, on behalf of the People, eventually filed, in lieu of a
money or goods received in consequence of the agency; as
when the principal fails to reimburse him for advances he
Comment, a Manifestation and Motion ratifying and adopting the
has made, and indemnify him for damages suffered without Petition for Certiorari of ADC. According to the OSG, in addition to
his fault (Article 1915, new Civil Code; Article 1730, old).” Prieto’s own confession, the prosecution had duly proven the
Accused in this case is not even an agent of the corporation but elements of estafa. The cases cited by the RTC in its assailed Orders
a cashier and accounting clerk. Payment of rentals by the tenants to were inapplicable to Prieto’s case. Also, since the grant of the
the accused is also payment to the corporation because accused is demurrer to evidence is tantamount to an acquittal, albeit based on
only a cashier whose duties include the receipt of rentals due from erroneous grounds and misinterpretation of law and jurisprudence,
the tenants. the remedy of appeal was not available to the People. Thus, the
WHEREFORE, the Demurrer to Evidence is granted.
On the civil aspect of the case, set for hearing on May 25, 2005
Petition for Certiorari was the proper remedy.
and June 13, 2005 at 8:30 A.M. 6
The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision on August 28, 2009
granting the Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 91714 and
ADC, as the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 97- finding that:
157752, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned Evidence on record strongly supports the People’s argument that the
cases cited by the trial court are inapplicable in this case. The
RTC Order. The RTC, in an Order dated August 8, 2005, denied the
elements of Estafa have been duly proven by the prosecution.
Motion for Reconsideration, thus: Records reveal that [Prieto] had admitted having failed to remit the
[T]he Court is constrained to deny the [Motion for Reconsideration rentals from 1992 to 1994, or for a period of two (2) years. While it
filed by private complainant] because the prosecution failed to prove is a fact that she was instructed to have the rentals col-744
all the elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under paragraph
1(b) of Art. 315 which are the following:
1) That money, goods or other personal property be 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the
4 ANNOTATED
duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
_______________
6 Id., at p. 82. Corporation
lected to be deposited on the day of the collection or the following
742
day, however, since the misappropriation was discovered only after
two (2) years, it only goes to show that she had the discretion as to
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS when to have these rentals deposited or not to have them deposited at
all. She had control as to the amount she wished to include as part of
2 ANNOTATED her collections, which led her to misappropriating the rental
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development collections. The said misappropriation would not have been
discovered only after 2 years had there not been a fiduciary
Corporation relationship between [Prieto] and her employer. As such, she could
2) That there be misappropriation or conversion of such not be considered not having juridical possession of the rentals she
money or property by the offender, or denial on his part as had collected. Clearly, the trial court erred in declaring that [Prieto]
such receipt; is likened to a bank teller, whose possession of the cash collections
3) That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is is merely physical. Contrary to such findings, [Prieto] in this case
to the prejudice of another; and had physical or material possession and juridical possession with a
4) That there is a demand made by the offended party to duty to make delivery of the collections she received in trust.
the offender. Moreover, it is well to note that the case of People vs.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the first element. Benitez raised by [ADC], finds application in the instant case. In
The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Burce vs. CA, supra, to wit: Benitez, the accused was employed as collector of rents of the
“When the money, goods, or any other personal houses owned by his employer. For two (2) months, the accused
property is received by the offender from the offended made several collections from his employer’s tenants amounting to
party (1) in trust or (2) on commission or (3) for P540.00. Having failed to turn over said amount, or to account for it,
administration, the offender acquires both material or to his employer, upon demand, the accused offered to work in the
physical possession and juridical possession of the thing former’s establishment, in the sum of P100.00, to be deducted from
received. Juridical possession means a possession which his salary every month until the whole amount of P540.00 is fully
gives the transferee a right over the thing which the paid. The agreement was reduced to writing. However, after working
transferee may set up even against the owner. In this case, for a few days, the accused did not report for work. His employer
petitioner was a cash custodian who was primarily sent him a demand letter for the settlement of his account. As the
responsible for the cash-in-vault. Her possession of the accused failed to pay the amount of his obligation, a complaint for
cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank teller, Estafa was filed against him, and for which he was convicted. The
both being mere bank employees.” Supreme Court ratiocinates in this case that the failure to account
To reiterate, when accused received the rental payments from upon demand, for funds or property held in trust is circumstantial
the tenants, she only received the material and physical possession of evidence of misappropriation. 7

the money and the juridical possession remains in the owner.

In view of the foregoing, [the] Motion for Reconsideration is _______________
hereby DENIED. 7 Id., at pp. 27-29.

ADC sought recourse from the Court of Appeals by filing a 745

Petition for Certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 91714. ADC VOL. 702, JULY 31, 2013 745
averred that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders dated March 8,
2005 and August 8, 2005, contrary to law and jurisprudence, and Corporation
despite the overwhelming evidence on record proving Prieto’s Given the findings of the Court of Appeals that the RTC Orders
liability for estafa. ADC addi- were in contravention of law and settled jurisprudence and were,
743 therefore, issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
VOL. 702, JULY 31, 2013 743 excess of jurisdiction, the appellate court held that its reversal of the
grant of Demurrer to Evidence did not violate Prieto’s right against reversal of the Decision dated August 28, 2009 and Resolution dated
double jeopardy, citing People v. Hon. Laguio, Jr.  and Dayap v. 8
November 12, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
Sendiong. 9
91714 and the reinstatement of the Orders dated March 8, 2005 and
The Court of Appeals lastly ruled, based on People v. Nano,  hat 10
August 8, 2005 of the RTC in Criminal Case No. No. 97-157752. The
the filing of the Petition for Certiorari by ADC, instead of by the Petition is docketed as G.R. No. 191025.
OSG, was a mere defect in form, which was cured when the OSG To justify the timeliness of the filing of her Petition in G.R. No.
subsequently filed a Manifestation and Motion ratifying and adopting 191025 on February 10, 2012, Prieto alleges that she received a copy
said Petition. of the Resolution dated November 12, 2009 of the Court of Appeals,
In the end, the Court of Appeals decreed: denying her Motion for Reconsideration, only on January 26, 2010,
WHEREFORE, finding grave abuse of discretion amounting mailed to her by the PAO.
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as prayed for, the assailed Orders, of In the present Petition, Prieto insists that she was a mere
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8, dated 08 March 2005 employee with continuing instruction from ADC to deposit the rental
and 08 August 2005, in Criminal Case No. 97-157752, are
payments either on the same day or the day after collection, and she
hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Let the instant case be
remanded to the RTC and reinstated for the reception of the defense could not have validly retained control of the amounts collected
evidence/further trial. 11 because ownership of the same still belonged to ADC. Prieto goes on
to argue that without juridical possession of the rental payments she
The appellate court denied Prieto’s Motion for Reconsideration collected, she cannot be
_______________
in its Resolution dated November 12, 2009. 13 Id., at p. 117.
The PAO, Prieto’s counsel before the RTC and the Court of
Appeals, received a copy of the Resolution dated November 12, 2009 748
on November 24, 2009, hence, giving Prieto until December 9, 2009
to appeal the adverse judgment of the Court of Appeals to this Court.
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Atty. Allan Julius B. Azcueta (Azcueta), Public Attorney II of the 8 ANNOTATED
PAO, filed on December 4, 2009 a Motion for Extension of Time to Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
File Petition for Re-
_______________ Corporation
8  547 Phil. 296, 309-310; 518 SCRA 393, 409 (2007). convicted of estafa since an essential element of the crime is lacking.
9  G.R. No. 177960, January 29, 2009, 577 SCRA 134, 146-147.
10 G.R. No. 94639, January 13, 1992, 205 SCRA 155, 159. In a Resolution  dated March 3, 2010, the Court, without
14

11 Rollo, p. 31. necessarily giving due course to the Petition in G.R. No. 191025,
required ADC to file its Comment.
746 ADC, in its Comment, prays for the outright denial of the
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Petition on the following grounds: (1) G.R. Nos. 190282 and 191025
both involve Prieto’s appeal of the Decision dated August 28, 2009
6 ANNOTATED and Resolution dated November 12, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development CA-G.R. SP No. 91714, and in the Resolution dated February 10,
Corporation 2010, the Court already granted Prieto’s motion to withdraw the
Petition in G.R. No. 190282 and considered G.R. No. 190282 closed
view on Certiorari before the Court, requesting an extension of 30
and terminated; (2) even with the grant of Prieto’s previous motion
days from December 9, 2009, or until January 8, 2010, within which
for extension of time, she only had until January 8, 2010 within
to file Prieto’s appeal of the Decision dated August 28, 2009 and
which to appeal the adverse judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-
Resolution dated November 12, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 91714, so the filing of the Petition in G.R. No. 191025
G.R. SP No. 91714. The Motion was docketed as G.R. No. 190282.
on February 10, 2010 was already out of time; and (3) Prieto’s
However, on January 12, 2010, Atty. Azcueta filed before the
arguments in her Petition in G.R. No. 191025 merely rehash or
Court a Manifestation with Motion, alleging that:
restate those already resolved by the Court of Appeals.
3. On 06 January 2010, the petitioner, Rhodora Prieto,
personally visited the undersigned counsel’s office and after a Prieto claims in her Reply that she was not aware that Atty.
thorough discussion of the case with her, [Prieto] had a change of Azcueta filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a Petition for
heart and has decided not to further appeal her case anymore, Review, docketed as G.R. No. 190282 and that she did not authorize
considering that she still has the chance to present her evidence Atty. Azcueta to file a Manifestation with Motion withdrawing her
before the lower court and at the same time the chance to have the appeal of the adverse judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
case settled amicably if the lower court allows; SP No. 91714. According to Prieto, she went to the PAO from time to
4. After careful deliberation and exhaustive discussion with time to follow-up on her case, but she felt that her case was not being
the undersigned counsel, [Prieto] is now voluntarily signifying her
diligently attended to, so she decided to hire the services of a private
desire to withdraw the filing of the Petition for Review
on Certiorari; lawyer with money raised by her relatives. When she asked for a
5. For this reason, the undersigned humbly and profusely copy of the Court of Appeals Resolution dated November 12, 2009
apologizes for the inconvenience that the non-filing of the petition denying her Motion for Reconsideration, she was told by the PAO
may have caused to this Honorable Court. The motion for extension that a copy of the same would be sent to her
was filed solely for the purpose of protecting and serving the interest _______________
of [Prieto]. 12 14 Id., at pp. 88-89.

Atty. Azcueta then prayed for the Court to note the Manifestation 749
with Motion and to dispense with the filing of the Petition for Review VOL. 702, JULY 31, 2013 749
on Certiorari.
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
In its Resolution dated February 10, 2010 in G.R. No. 190282,
the Court resolved: Corporation
(1) to NOTE the manifestation of Public Attorney’s Office that [Prieto] decided not to through mail. She received a copy of said Resolution only on January
appeal her case
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 114-115.
26, 2010, giving her until February 10, 2010 to appeal. Consequently,
her Petition in G.R. No. 191025 filed on February 10, 2010 was filed
747 within the reglementary period.
At the outset, the Court notes that both G.R. Nos. 190282 and
VOL. 702, JULY 31, 2013 747 191025 involve Prieto’s appeal of the Decision dated August 28,
2009 and Resolution dated November 12, 2009 of the Court of
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91714. On February 10, 2010, the
Corporation motion to withdraw the appeal in G.R. No. 190282, filed by the PAO,
considering that she still has the chance to present her evidence before the lower court and was granted by the Court; and on the same date, the Petition in G.R.
at the same time has the chance to have the case amicably settled;
(2) to GRANT the said counsel’s motion to withdraw the filing of the petition for review No. 191025 was filed by Prieto’s new counsel.
on certiorari; and The Court hereby outrightly denies Prieto’s Petition in G.R. No.
(3) to consider this case CLOSED and TERMINATED. 13

191025 for being filed out of time, without the need of delving into
Entry of Judgment was eventually made in G.R. No. 190282 on the propriety of the institution of G.R. No. 191025 in light of the
April 5, 2010. previous withdrawal of G.R. No. 190282.
Meanwhile, also on February 10, 2010, Prieto, through another The reglementary period for filing a Petition for Review on
counsel, Atty. Xilexferen P. Barroga (Barroga) of Barroga, Nario & Certiorari is set forth in Rule 45, Section 2 of the Rules of Court,
Associates Law Offices, filed the instant Petition for Review which provides:
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying for the
 SEC. 2. Time for filing; extension.—The petition shall be indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening at any time by the mere
filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final subterfuge of replacing counsel. x x x.
order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner’s
motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice _______________
of judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of 17 327 Phil. 928, 935; 258 SCRA 291, 296-297 (1996).
the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the
expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for 752
justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within 75 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
which to file the petition.
2 ANNOTATED
In this case, Prieto, through her counsel of record, the PAO, Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
received a copy of the Resolution denying her Motion for
Reconsideration of the adverse judgment of the Court of Appeals on Corporation
November 24, 2009. The 15-day period to appeal would Prieto herein not only alleges mistake or negligence on the part
750 of the PAO, but more seriously, attributes to her former counsel
75 SUPREME COURT REPORTS deliberate acts which deprived her of her right to appeal, i.e., refusing
to give her a copy of the Resolution dated November 12, 2009 of the
0 ANNOTATED Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 91714 and misrepresenting to
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development the Court that it was authorized by Prieto to withdraw her appeal in
G.R. No. 190282. However, other than Prieto’s bare allegations, there
Corporation is no other evidence of the purported detrimental acts of the PAO. In
have ended on December 9, 2009, but with the 30-day extension addition, Prieto’s allegations are so contrary to the past conduct of the
period prayed for by the PAO in G.R. No. 190282, the last day for PAO, which diligently represented her before the RTC, the Court of
filing the appeal was moved to January 8, 2010. Clearly, the filing of Appeals, and even up to this Court, with the PAO even timely filing
the Petition in G.R. No. 191025 by Prieto’s new counsel was already the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review
beyond the reglementary period for appeal. on Certiorari before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 190282.
Time and again the Court has declared that the right to appeal is It must be stressed that anyone seeking exemption from the
neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious
accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail instances warranting such deviation.  Parties praying for the liberal
18

of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the interpretation of the rules must be able to hurdle that heavy burden of
Rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. 15
proving that they deserve an exceptional treatment. It was never the
Prieto prays for the liberal application of the rules of procedure Court’s intent “to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the
and posits that the 15-day reglementary period be counted from rules with impunity.”  Unfortunately for Prieto, she was unable to
19

January 26, 2010, the day she actually received a copy of the discharge this burden of proof.
Resolution denying her Motion for Reconsideration of the adverse Procedural rules should not be so easily brushed aside with the
judgment of the Court of Appeals, sent to her through mail by the mere averment of the “higher interest of justice,” as the Court
PAO. discussed in Building Care Corp./Leopard Security & Investigation
The Court is not persuaded. Agency v. Macaraeg: 20

In National Power Corporation v. Laohoo,  the Court 16

_______________
pronounced that: 18 Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, 433 Phil. 844, 868; 384 SCRA 466, 485 (2002).
The rules provide that if a party is appearing by counsel, service 19 Rivera-Pascual v. Lim, G.R. No. 191837, September 19, 2012, 681 SCRA 429,
436.
upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them unless
20 G.R. No. 198357, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 643, 647-648.
service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. x x x.
The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even
753
mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique. The
exception to this rule is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, VOL. 702, JULY 31, 2013 753
reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in
court. The Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
_______________
15 Basuel v. Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB), 526 Phil. 608, 613-614; 494 SCRA
Corporation
118, 123 (2006). It should be emphasized that the resort to a liberal application,
16 G.R. No. 151973, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 564, 584-585. or suspension of the application of procedural rules, must remain as
the exception to the well-settled principle that rules must be
751
complied with for the orderly administration of justice.
In Marohomsalic v. Cole, the Court stated:
VOL. 702, JULY 31, 2013 751 While procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest
of justice, it is well-settled that these are tools designed to
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development facilitate the adjudication of cases. The relaxation of
Corporation procedural rules in the interest of justice was never
intended to be a license for erring litigants to violate the
failure of a party’s counsel to notify him on time of the adverse
rules with impunity. Liberality in the interpretation and
judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence, which is
application of the rules can be invoked only in proper cases
not excusable. Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the
and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While
client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an
litigation is not a game of technicalities, every case must be
adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a
prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to
ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face.
ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
To sustain petitioner’s self-serving argument that it cannot be
The later case of Daikoku Electronics Phils., Inc. v. Raza,
bound by its counsel’s negligence would set a dangerous precedent,
further explained that:
as it would enable every party-litigant to render inoperative any
To be sure, the relaxation of procedural rules cannot be made
adverse order or decision of the courts, through the simple expedient
without any valid reasons proffered for or underpinning it. To merit
of alleging gross negligence on the part of its counsel. (Citations
liberality, petitioner must show reasonable cause justifying its non-
omitted.)
compliance with the rules and must convince the Court that the
outright dismissal of the petition would defeat the administration of
The Court further elucidated in People v. Kawasa and Salido  on 17
substantial justice. x x x. The desired leniency cannot be accorded
why it is not easily swayed by assertions of gross negligence or absent valid and compelling reasons for such a procedural lapse. x x
mistake on the part of the counsel that should not bind the client: x.
If indeed accused-appellant felt and believed that his counsel We must stress that the bare invocation of “the interest of
was inept, that he should have taken action, such as discharging him substantial justice” line is not some magic want that will
earlier, instead of waiting until an adverse decision was handed, and automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural rules.
thereupon heap all blame and condemnation on his counsel, who Procedural rules are not to be belittled, let alone dismissed simply
cannot now be heard to defend himself. This cannot be allowed, for because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a
to do otherwise would result in a situation where all a defeated party party’s substantial rights. Utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly
would have to do to salvage his case is to claim neglect or mistake rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction.
on the part of his counsel as a ground for reversing an adverse (Emphases and citations omitted.)
judgment. There would be no end to litigation if this were allowed as
every shortcoming of counsel could be the subject of challenge by 754
his client through another counsel who, if he is also found wanting,
would likewise be disowned by the same client through another 75 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
counsel, and so on ad infinitum. This would render court proceedings 4 ANNOTATED
 Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
Corporation
Prieto cannot claim that she had been deprived of her day in
court when her arguments in support of her Demurrer to Evidence
had been heard by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. Moreover, she
does not lose her liberty at this point for she still has the opportunity
to present evidence in her defense before the RTC in the continuation
of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 97-157752.
With the withdrawal of the appeal in G.R. No. 190282 and the
belated filing of the Petition in G.R. No. 191025, the Decision dated
August 28, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91714,
reversing the grant by the RTC of Prieto’s Demurrer to Evidence and
reinstating Criminal Case No. 97-157752, had become final and
executory, thus, immutable. As the Court declared in Lalican v.
Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. : 21

A judgment becomes “final and executory” by operation of law.

Finality becomes a fact when the reglementary period to appeal
lapses and no appeal is perfected within such period. As a
consequence, no court (not even this Court) can exercise appellate
jurisdiction to review a case or modify a decision that has become
final. When a final judgment is executory, it becomes immutable and
unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect either by the
court, which rendered it or even by this Court. The doctrine is
founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that,
at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some
definite point in time. (Citations omitted.)

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for being filed out of

time.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama,
Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur. 

_______________
21 G.R. No. 183526, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 159, 173.

755
VOL. 702, JULY 31, 2013 755
Prieto vs. Alpadi Development
Corporation
Petition denied.