TOPIC: When Appeal to be Taken

Macapagal vs. People

G.R. No. 193217 February 26, 2014

Facts:
On November 25, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa
for misappropriating, for her own benefit, the total amount of P800,000.00, which is the value of the
unreturned and unsold pieces of jewelry. Petitioner received the decision on January 13, 2009 then she
timely moved for reconsideration, but was likewise denied in an Order dated May 20, 2009 which the
petitioner allegedly received on July 31, 2009. She supposedly filed a Notice of Appeal . On August 3,
2009, but the same was denied on June 29, 2010 for having been filed out of time.

Issue:
WON the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, gravely erred in denying the notice of appeal
filed by the herein petitioner-appellant.

Ruling:
The petition is denied. Petitioner availed of the wrong mode of assailing the trial court’s denial
of her notice of appeal under Section 6 of Rule 122.

SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken. — An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from
promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. This period for
perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is
filed until notice of the order overruling the motion has been served upon the accused or his counsel
at which time the balance of the period begins to run. (6a)

Indeed, cases should be determined on the merits after full opportunity to all parties for
ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural
imperfections in order to serve better the ends of justice.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 193217 February 26, 2014

CORAZON MACAPAGAL, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Regional
Trial Court1 (RTC) Decision dated November 25, 2008 convicting petitioner Corazon Macapagal of
the crime of Estafa;2 the Order denying her Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial; 3 and the
Order4 dated June 29, 2010 denying her Notice of Appeal, 5 in Criminal Case No. 98-166722.

For a proper perspective, a brief statement of the factual and procedural antecedents of the case
follows:

On November 25, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of the crime of Estafa
for misappropriating, for her own benefit, the total amount of ₱800,000.00, which is the value of the
unreturned and unsold pieces of jewelry.6 Petitioner received the decision on

January 13, 2009 then she timely moved for reconsideration, but was likewise denied in an Order
dated May 20, 2009 which the petitioner allegedly received on July 31, 2009. She supposedly filed a
Notice of Appeal7 on August 3, 2009, but the same was denied on June 29, 2010 for having been
filed out of time.8

Aggrieved, petitioner comes directly before the Court in this petition for review on certiorari with the
following assignment of errors:

I.

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 9, GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING

THE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY THE HEREIN PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

II.

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 9, GRAVELY ERRED IN

CONVICTING THE HEREIN PETITIONER-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF ESTAFA.

III.

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 9, GRAVELY ERRED IN DENYING

THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR NEW TRIAL FILED BY THE HEREIN
PETITIONER-APPELLANT.9
We deny the petition.

At the outset, the Court notes that the instant case suffers from various procedural infirmities which
this Court cannot ignore and are fatal to petitioner’s cause. It appears that petitioner assails not only
the denial by the RTC of her notice of appeal but likewise seeks the reversal of her conviction for
estafa. For reasons that will be discussed below, the petition is bound to fail, because of petitioner’s
complete disregard of the procedural rules and the orders of the Court.

First, petitioner availed of the wrong mode of assailing the trial court’s denial of her notice of appeal.
Sections 2 and 3, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure lay down the rules on where,
how and when appeal is taken, to wit:

SEC. 2. Where to appeal. – The appeal may be taken as follows:

xxxx

(b) To the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the proper cases provided by law, in cases
decided by the Regional Trial Court; and

xxxx

SEC. 3. How appeal taken. – (a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court or to the Court of Appeals in
cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be taken by
filing a notice of appeal filed with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from
and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.

SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken. – An appeal must be taken within fifteen days from promulgation
of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from x x x.

Consequently, the disallowance of the notice of appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal
itself.10 A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a mode of appeal of a lower
court’s decision or final order direct to the Supreme Court. However, the questioned Order denying
her notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken. 11 The Rules
of Court specifically provides that no appeal shall be taken from an order disallowing or dismissing
an appeal. Rather, the aggrieved party can elevate the matter through a special civil action under
Rule 65. Thus, in availing of the wrong mode of appeal in this petition under Rule 45 instead of the
appropriate remedy of Rule 65, the petition merits an outright dismissal. 12

The Court has often admonished litigants for unnecessarily burdening it with the task of determining
under which rule a petition should fall. It has likewise warned lawyers to follow the requisites for
appeal prescribed by law, ever aware that any error or imprecision in compliance may well be fatal to
the client’s cause.13

Second, even if we treat this petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65, it is still dismissible for
violation of the hierarchy of courts.14 Although the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the
RTC and the CA to issue writs of certiorari, this should not be taken as granting parties the absolute
and unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which an application will be directed. 15 Direct
resort to this Court is allowed only if there are special, important and compelling reasons clearly and
specifically spelled out in the petition, which are not present in this case. 16
Third, even if we ignore the above non-compliance and consider the petition as an appeal of the trial
court’s decision convicting her of estafa, again, we cannot do so for yet another fatal procedural
shortcoming committed by petitioner. As stated earlier, petitioner elevated to this Court not only the
Order denying her notice of appeal but also the Decision convicting her of estafa and the Order
denying her motion for reconsideration. In utter disregard of the rules of procedure, petitioner
attached to the petition only the June 29, 2010 RTC Order denying her notice of appeal but she
failed to attach a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed decision
convicting her of estafa and the order denying her motion for reconsideration. 17 A petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must contain a certified true copy or duplicate
original of the assailed decision, final order or judgment. 18 Failure to comply with such requirement
shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. 19

The main reason for the prescribed attachments is to facilitate the review and evaluation of the
petition by making readily available to the Court all the orders, resolutions, decisions, pleadings,
transcripts, documents, and pieces of evidence that are material and relevant to the issues
presented in the petition without relying on the case records of the lower court. 20

Lastly, this petition is bound to fail because of petitioner’s repeated disregard of the Rules and the
Court’s lawful orders. In a Resolution21 dated September 15, 2010, the Court required petitioner to
1avvphi1

fully comply with the Rules of Court, the pertinent portion of which reads:

xxxx

2. petitioner to FULLY COMPLY with the Rules by submitting: (a) an affidavit of service on the RTC
and on the Office of the Solicitor General; (b) a proper verification in accordance with Section 1, Rule
45 in relation to Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules, and a valid certification of non-forum shopping in
accordance with Section 5, Rule 7, with properly accomplished jurat showing that the affiant
exhibited before the notary public at least one current identification document issued by an official
agency bearing the photograph and signature of the affiant as required under Sections 6 and 12,
Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by Court En Banc Resolution dated 19
February 2008 in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC; and (c) her counsel’s contact details pursuant to the En
Banc Resolution dated 10 July 2007 in A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC, all within five (5) days from notice. x x x22

Despite the directive, no such compliance was made prompting the Court to require her counsel to
show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with for non-compliance. Records likewise show
that petitioner also failed to file a Reply to respondent’s Comment to the petition.

On August 2, 2011, petitioner’s counsel submitted his explanation for non-compliance and asked for
more time within which to comply with the Court’s resolution, because of heavy workload and his
failure to contact petitioner who apparently transferred residence. In a Resolution23 dated

August 31, 2011, the Court, while granting the motion for extension requested, admonished
petitioner’s counsel for the unsatisfactory explanation. Yet again, petitioner failed to file the required
Reply prompting the Court again to ask for the counsel’s explanation why he should not be
disciplinary dealt with. Petitioner’s counsel claimed that he could not prepare the required reply
because the documents needed had been destroyed by typhoon "Pedring." He, likewise, pointed out
that he exerted earnest efforts to locate petitioner but he could not do so at that point. 24 After the
Court required him again to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with for not
complying with the Court’s resolutions, and since his efforts to communicate with his client proved
futile, he asked the Court that he be relieved of all his duties and responsibilities as counsel on
record.25 In a Resolution26 dated December 10, 2012, we required petitioner herself to comment
thereon, but no such compliance was made to date. 1âwphi1
Indeed, cases should be determined on the merits after full opportunity to all parties for ventilation of
their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections in order to
serve better the ends of justice.27 It is the duty of the counsel to make sure of the nature of the errors
he proposes to assign, to determine which court has appellate jurisdiction, and to follow the
requisites for appeal.28 Any error in compliance may be fatal to the client's cause.29 It should be
stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a
procedural remedy of statutory origin and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the
provisions of law authorizing its exercise. 30 The requirements of the rules on appeal cannot be
considered as merely harmless and trivial technicalities that can be discarded at whim. In these
times when court dockets are clogged with numerous litigations, parties have to abide by these rules
with greater fidelity in order to facilitate the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. 31

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN* JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice
Footnotes

* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, per Special Order
No. 1640 dated February 19, 2014.

1
Branch 9, Manila.

2
Petition, rollo, pp. 3-4.

3
Id at 4.

4
Penned by Presiding Judge Amelia Tria-Infante, id. at 24-25.

5
Rollo, pp. 19-23.

6
Comment, id. at 29-30.

7
Rollo, pp. 19-23.

8
Id. at 24-25.

9
Petition, id. at 7-8.

10
Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, 433 Phil. 844, 854 (2002).

11
Id.

12
Id. at 855.

13
Id. at 856.

14
Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano v. Benemerito, 545 Phil. 311, 319 (2007).

15
Id. at 319-320.

16
Id. at 320.

17
Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. 4 reads:

SEC. 4. Contents of the petition. – The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18) copies,
with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by petitioner,
and shall x x x (d) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a
certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of
court of the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such
material portions of the record as would support the petition; x x x.

18
Spouses Lanaria v. Planta, 563 Phil. 400, 414 (2007).
19
Rules of Court, Rule 45, Sec. 5.

20
B.E. San Diego, Inc. v. Alzul, 551. Phil. 841, 860 (2007).

21
Rollo, pp. 27-28.

22
Id. at 27. (Emphasis in the original)

23
Id. at 54-55.

24
Id. at 57-61.

25
Id. at 65-68.

26
Id. at 70.

27
Hilario v. People, G.R. No. 161070, April 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 191, 203.

28
Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, supra note 10, at 855.

29
Id. at 856.

30
Heirs of Teofila Gaudiano v. Benemerito, supra note 14, at 320; id. at 867.

31
Basuel v. Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB), 526 Phil. 608, 614 (2006).