Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > March 1999 Decisions > G.R. No. 109721 March 11, 1999 - FELIX A. SAJOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 109721. March 11, 1999.]

FELIX A. SAJOT, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


PARDO, J.:


What is before the Court is a petition to set aside a resolution of the Court of Appeals, 1 denying petitioner’s "Urgent Motion for Reconsideration" of the dismissal of his appeal for having been filed out of time, and another resolution denying petitioner’s "Motion for Reconsideration" 2 for being a prohibited pleading.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

On April 23, 1991, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 118, Pasay City, convicted petitioner and Antonio Tobias in Criminal Case No. 97-12635, of estafa. The court sentenced each of them to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years of prision correctional to thirteen (13) years of prision mayor, and to reimburse Father Modesto Teston in the amount of P75,000.00, as actual damages, P50,000.00, as moral damages, P10,000.00, as attorney’s fees and to pay the cost of the suit. 3

Antonio Tobias appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, 4 and, thereafter, filed an appellant’s brief, which appeal is now pending therein.

On the other hand, on June 24, 1991, petitioner filed with the trial court a notice of appeal through Attorney Mariano Cervo. Subsequently, the trial court elevated the records to the Court of Appeals. Per notice dated January 14, 1992, the Court of Appeals required petitioner to file an appellant’s brief within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice. 5

On February 21, 1992, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a "Petition for Extension of Time to File Brief," asking for an additional thirty-day period to file appellant’s brief, which the court granted. 6 On March 20, 1992, petitioner filed a "Petition for Second Extension of Time to File Brief", which the court likewise granted. 7 Again, on May 14, 1992, he filed a "Petition for Third Extension of Time to File Brief." The court granted the motion. 8

On November 27, 1992, the Court of Appeals resolved to dismiss petitioner’s appeal for failure to file his brief within the third extension granted by the court. Petitioner contended that he only learned about the dismissal through a friend. When confronted, his counsel could not give any plausible explanation for his failure to file brief. On February 4, 1993, Petitioner, "for and by himself," 9 filed with the Court of Appeals an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. The court denied the motion. 10

On March 12, 1993, Petitioner, by a new counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration alleging the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. Substantial justice/Ends of justice can be fully served

"II. Excusable negligence on the part of the moving appellant

"III. Exercise of equity jurisdiction by this Honorable Court of Appeals" 11

Petitioner alleged further that his counsel, Attorney Mariano H. G. Cervo, never submitted the brief because of "utter and gross ignorance of procedure and/or negligence or omission, intentional or otherwise, in the performance of his avowed professional duty." 12

On March 30, 1993, the Court of Appeals resolved to deny the motion for being a prohibited pleading. Petitioner received a copy of the resolution on April 12, 1993.

Hence, this petition.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The issue boils down to whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to file appellant’s brief.

Rule 50, Section 1 (e) of the Revised Rules of Court provides

"SECTION 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An Appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


(e) Failure of appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules;"

In a minute resolution, 13 we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"True, appeal is an essential part of our judicial system. As such, courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, particularly if the appeal is meritorious. Respect for the appellant’s right, however, carries with it the correspondent respect for the appellee’s similar rights to fair play and justice. The appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 14 we ruled that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, this, we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances."cralaw virtua1aw library

While litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is a truism that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.

Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals denied him the right to due process when it dismissed his appeal because of his counsel’s negligence.

We do not agree. Petitioner was himself guilty of neglect. He was aware of his conviction and of the requirement of filing an appellant’s brief. His excuse that he relied on the services of his counsel and that he was busy is "flimsy." 15 "Equally busy people have in one way or the other learned how to cope with the same problem he had. Were we to accept his excuse, this Court would have to open cases dismissed many years ago on the ground of counsel’s neglect. In many cases, the fact is that counsel’s negligence is matched by his client’s own negligence." 16

We note that even during the trial of the estafa case before the lower court, petitioner never appeared in court except during the arraignment. Thus, the court issued a warrant for his arrest and interpreted his non-appearance as "flight." 17 Petitioner’s lack of vigilance as found by the trial court in its decision is emphasized when his counsel in the instant petition filed a motion to withdraw primarily on the ground of irreconcilable professional relationship between Attorney Florentino Temporal and petitioner. Despite petitioner’s repeated assurances relayed by phone, letters and telegrams that he will meet with Atty. Temporal to formulate the appellant’s brief, he never did so. Moreover, petitioner paid Atty. Temporal’s professional fees with checks drawn against closed accounts.

Indeed, petitioner does not claim innocence of the crime charged. He invokes partial restitution as a defense contending that long before the lower court’s decision, complainant had been practically restituted the amount of P65,000.00. 18 The "reimbursement or restitution to the offended party of the money or property swindled does not extinguish criminal liability. It only extinguishes civil liability." 19

We do not see that the Court of Appeals committed any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for petitioner’s failure to file appellant’s brief.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DISMISSES the petition for certiorari to annul the resolution dated February 11, 1993 and March 30, 1993, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 11912, entitled People of the Philippines v. Felix A. Sajot, Et. Al.

With costs.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. In CA-G.R. CR No. 11912, Resolution adopted on February 11, 1993.

2. Adopted on March 30, 1993.

3. Rollo, pp. 15-19.

4. Docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 11912.

5. Rollo, p. 57.

6. By resolution dated March 3, 1992.

7. By resolution dated March 30, 1992.

8. By resolution dated June 1, 1992.

9. Rollo, p. 4.

10. By resolution dated February 11, 1993.

11. Rollo, p. 32.

12. Ibid.

13. Sps. Lawa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88983, February 28, 1996, cited in Summary of 1996 Supreme Court Rulings, January to June 1996, by Daniel T. Martinez, p. 902.

14. 258 SCRA 159, 163, citing Sps. Ilasco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88983, December 14, 1993.

15. Macapagal v. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 491, 502.

16. Macapagal v. Court of Appeals, supra.

17. Petition, Rollo, p. 17.

18. Ibid., p. 6.

19. The Revised Penal Code, by Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino, 1988 Edition. Vol. Three, p. 243.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





March-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 99266 March 2, 1999 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117105 March 2, 1999 - TIMES TRANSIT CREDIT COOP. INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124320 March 2, 1999 - HEIRS OF GUIDO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL. v. ROY S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125138 March 2, 1999 - NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125683 March 2, 1999 - EDEN BALLATAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126134 March 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOVEN DE LA CUESTA

  • G.R. No. 131047 March 2, 1999 - TOYOTA AUTOPARTS, PHILS., INC. v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1178 March 3, 1999 - COMELEC v. BUCO R. DATU-IMAN

  • A.M. No. P-94-1107 March 3, 1999 - CARMELINA CENIZA-GUEVARRA v. CELERINA R. MAGBANUA

  • G.R. No. 93090 March 3, 1999 - ROMEO CABELLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127575 March 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO CANTERE

  • G.R. No. 127801 March 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL YU VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 130347 March 3, 1999 - ABELARDO VALARAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134096 March 3, 1999 - JOSEPH PETER S. SISON v. COMELEC

  • A.M. No. P-99-1286 March 4, 1999 - CONCEPCION L. JEREZ v. ARTURO A. PANINSURO

  • G.R. No. 108027 March 4, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA M. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 111676 March 4, 1999 - SILVINA TORRES VDA. DE CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117213 March 4, 1999 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN v. MARIANO ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122539 March 4, 1999 - JESUS V. TIOMICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123936 March 4, 1999 - RONALD SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132648 March 4, 1999 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133563 March 4, 1999 - BRIDGET BONENG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 123792 March 8, 1999 - MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125537 March 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE MAGLANTAY

  • A.C. CBD No. 167 March 9, 1999 - PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES v. DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1175 March 9, 1999 - VICTORINO CRUZ v. REYNOLD Q. YANEZA

  • G.R. No. 108532 March 9, 1999 - PABLITO TANEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115741 March 9, 1999 - HEIRS OF JOAQUIN ASUNCION v. MARGARITO GERVACIO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121587 March 9, 1999 - SOLEDAD DY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126123 March 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO PLATILLA

  • G.R. No. 128721 March 9, 1999 - CRISMINA GARMENTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-94-1106 March 10, 1999 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO v. ROLANDO G. LEYVA

  • Adm. Matters No. RTJ-98-1423 March 10, 1999 - ROMAN CAGATIN, ET AL. v. LEONARDO N. DEMECILLO

  • G.R. No. 95815 March 10, 1999 - SERVANDO MANGAHAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120163 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATUKON BANSIL

  • G.R. No. 120971 March 10, 1999 - TAGGAT INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123426 March 10, 1999 - NAT’L. FEDERATION OF LABOR v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 126874 March 10, 1999 - GSIS v. ANTONIO P. OLISA

  • G.R. No. 127123 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH LAKINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 129442 March 10, 1999 - FEDERICO PALLADA, ET AL. v. RTC OF KALIBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129824 March 10, 1999 - DE PAUL/KING PHILIP CUSTOMS TAILOR, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1293 March 11, 1999 - EMILIO DILAN, ET AL. v. JUAN R. DULFO

  • G.R. No. 95326 March 11, 1999 - ROMEO P. BUSUEGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106518 March 11, 1999 - ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108440-42 March 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 109721 March 11, 1999 - FELIX A. SAJOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109979 March 11, 1999 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119157 March 11, 1999 - GOLDEN THREAD KNITTING INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125590 March 11, 1999 - BIOMIE S. OCHAGABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127004 March 11, 1999 - NAT’L. STEEL CORP. v. RTC OF LANAO DEL NORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127663 March 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132250 March 11, 1999 - ROSALIA P. SALVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 123982 March 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO K. JOYNO

  • G.R. No. 134188 March 15, 1999 - NUR G. JAAFAR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61508 March 17, 1999 - CITIBANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111704 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 115693 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVERIANO BOTONA

  • G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1999 - EULALIA RUSSELL, ET AL. v. AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120751 March 17, 1999 - PHIMCO INDUSTRIES v. JOSE BRILLANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125311 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONYOT MAHINAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129695 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO TABONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130380 March 17, 1999 - HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO BLANCAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115006 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 119756 March 18, 1999 - FORTUNE EXPRESS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127542 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHENG HO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 128682 March 18, 1999 - JOAQUIN T. SERVIDAD v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 97-6-182-RTC March 19, 1999 - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC, BRANCH 68

  • G.R. No. 96262 March 22, 1999 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. EMBROIDERY AND GARMENTS INDUSTRIES (PHIL.)

  • G.R. No. 116738 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO DOMOGOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126286 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER VAYNACO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126714 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 127523 March 22, 1999 - LEONCIA ALIPOON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1296 March 25, 1999 - DANIEL CRUZ v. CLERK OF COURT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1297 March 25, 1999 - LUDIVINA MARISGA-MAGBANUA v. EMILIO T. VILLAMAR V

  • G.R. No. 96740 March 25, 1999 - VIRGINIA P. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103953 March 25, 1999 - SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG KAPDULA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112088 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO ALMADEN

  • G.R. Nos. 116741-43 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MONTEFALCON

  • G.R. No. 117154 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO A. BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. 119172 March 25, 1999 - BELEN C. FIGUERRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120505 March 25, 1999 - AIUP, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122966-67 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR S. ALOJADO

  • G.R. No. 123160 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BATION

  • G.R. No. 124300 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENANTE ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 125053 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRISTOPHER CAÑA LEONOR

  • G.R. Nos. 126183 & 129221 March 25, 1999 - LUZVIMINDA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126916 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLINO BACONG MANAGAYTAY

  • G.R. No 127373 March 25, 1999 - ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127662 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO V. ERIBAL

  • G.R. No. 127708 March 25, 1999 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN PABLO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO V. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128386 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUDITO ALQUIZALAS

  • G.R. No. 130491 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MENGOTE

  • G.R. No. 130872 March 25, 1999 - FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131108 March 25, 1999 - ASIAN ALCOHOL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132980 March 25, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GLADYS C. LABRADOR

  • G.R. No. 133107 March 25, 1999 - RCBC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1082 & 98-10-135-MCTC March 29, 1999 - MARCELO CUEVA v. OLIVER T. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P-94-1015 March 29, 1999 - JASMIN MAGUAD, ET AL. v. NICOLAS DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93291 March 29, 1999 - SULPICIO LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113150 March 29, 1999 - HENRY TANCHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122827 March 29, 1999 - LIDUVINO M. MILLARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125129 March 29, 1999 - JOSEPH H. REYES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 129058 March 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO SEVILLENO

  • G.R. No. 131124 March 29, 1999 - OSMUNDO G. UMALI v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123540 March 30, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN AYO