Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > January 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 196712 : January 16, 2012] FLORENTINA SAMOY, LUISA SAMOY, EDUARDO SAMOY AND GERARDA SAMOY-NOQUILLO v. JUDGE MERVIN JOVITO S. SAMADAN, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF ALCALA, PANGASINAN, AND EFREN PEREZ Y GONZALES :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 January 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 196712 (Florentina Samoy, Luisa Samoy, Eduardo Samoy and Gerarda Samoy-Noquillo v. Judge Mervin Jovito S. Samadan, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Alcala, Pangasinan, and Efren Perez y Gonzales) � Acting on the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition, and REMAND the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).

On 13 April 2009, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Alcala, Pangasinan rendered a Decision acquitting Efren Perez y Gonzales of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.^[1] Aggrieved, plaintiff People of the Philippines along with herein petitioners filed a Joint Petition for Certiorari and Other Reliefs under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 50 of Villasis, Pangasinan. The RTC dismissed^[2] the petition on 7 June 2010. On 28 June 2010, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal to the CA, which was denied "for failure of appellant (sic) to submit the required memoranda within the reglementary period of thirty (30) days."^[3] 

Respondent having timely filed his Comment, we now resolve the issue of whether the applicable reglementary period for petitioners' appeal to the CA is forty-five (45) days, as stated in Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, or thirty (30) days as stated in Section 10 of the same rule.

We find that petitioners should have been given forty-five (45) days within which to submit their Appellants' Brief, pursuant to Section 7 of Rule 44. When petitioners filed their Joint Petition under Rule 65 with the RTC, the RTC took cognizance of the same in exercise of its original jurisdiction, such that the mode of appeal to the CA is not by certiorari, but by way of ordinary appeal, as provided under Section 2(a) of Rule 41: 

(a) Ordinary appeal - The appeal 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 with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law of these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

Section 10 of Rule 44 which respondent invokes refers to petitions  originally filed with the CA under Rule 65. When the certiorari petition is filed first with the RTC, it is elevated to the CA by way of ordinary appeal, to wit: 

A petition for certiorari - the remedy that petitioner Vios availed of to question the MTC decision before the RTC - is an original action whose resulting decision is a final order that completely disposes of the petition. The proper remedy from the RTC decision on the petition for certiorari that petitioner Vios filed with that court is an ordinary appeal to the CA under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court. Particularly instructive on this point is our ruling in Magestrado v. People of the Philippines, thus: 

The procedural issue herein basically hinges on the proper remedy which petitioner should have availed himself of before the Court of Appeals: an ordinary appeal or a petition for certiorari. Petitioner claims that he correctly questioned RTC-Branch 83's Order of dismissal of his Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 through a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Private respondent and public respondent People of the Philippines insist that an ordinary appeal was the proper remedy. 

We agree with respondents. We hold that the appellate court did not err in dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari, pursuant to Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court (and not under Rule 44, Section 10, invoked by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated 5 March 2001). 

The correct procedural recourse for petitioner was appeal, not only because RTC-Branch 83 did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 but also because RTC-Branch 83's Order of dismissal was a final order from which petitioners should have appealed in accordance with Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court.^[4] (Emphasis in the original.)

Thus, the CA should have applied the rule on Ordinary Appealed Cases, or Section 7 of Rule 44 which states: 

SEC. 7. Appellant's brief.�It shall be the duty of the appellant to file with the court, within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the notice of the clerk that all the evidence, oral and documentary, are attached to the record, seven (7) copies of his legibly typewritten, mimeographed or printed brief, with proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the CA for further proceedings. (Perlas-Bernabe, J., additional member vice Brion, J., per Special Order No. 1174 dated 9 January 2012)

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

�

Endnotes:

---

^[1] In Criminal Case No. 2967, penned by herein respondent Presiding Judge Mervin Jovito S. Samadan.

^[2] In SCA No. V-0066, penned by Judge Manuel F. Pastor, Jr. 

^[3] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 114985, and penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, concurred in by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam and Marlene Gonzales-Sison. 

^[4] Vios v. Pantangco, G.R. No. 163103, 6 February 2009, 578 SCRA 129.