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.

1 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

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.

2 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

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

3 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

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.1avvphi1 In a Resolution21 dated September 15,
2010, the Court required petitioner to 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-

4 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

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

5 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

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.

6 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

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.

7 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

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).

8 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!