ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 142384. April 4, 2005]

RAMIREZ vs. CA

THIRD DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 4 2005.

G.R. No. 142384 (Nelson Ramirez vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Doroteo Salazar.)

Assailed in the instant petition for review on certiorari is the Resolution dated October 28, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55344 dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by herein petitioner for having been filed out of time. Petitioner alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his petition by mere technicality and prays for a liberal application of procedural rules in order that his case may be decided on the merits.

The facts, as gathered from the records of the case, are as follows:

Complaints for libel were filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu by the Salazar Institute of Technology - Madridejos Branch, and its president, herein private respondent Doroteo Salazar, against herein petitioner Nelson Ramirez, the Manila Chronicle, Manila Bulletin, Manila Standard and Business Daily. The Salazar Institute of Technology is a merchant marine academy. Petitioner is the editor-in-chief of the "Tinig Marino", official publication of the United Filipino Seafarers, a maritime union of seafarers, of which he is the president.

In his complaint, private respondent narrated that sometime in the early part of the month of May 1997, he received numerous calls from his colleagues informing him of malicious derogatory publications tending to cause dishonor, discredit and contempt against his person and the Salazar Institute of Technology.He found out that petitioner published in the May- June 1997 issue of "Tinig Marino" a picture of a temporary structure with sawali walls, a lifejacket and a sign stating "WELCOME TO SAWALI MERCHANT ACADEMY."Petitioner also caused the publication of similar pictures in the Manila Chronicle, Manila Bulletin and Business Daily, describing the Salazar Institute of Technology as an example of "sub-standard maritime schools" and "diploma mills" operating under "dismal conditions" and "blamed it for the deteriorating quality of Filipino seafarers".He even challenged then Chairman Angel Alcala of the Commission on Higher Education to personally visit the school and order its closure if he finds it short of the standards required of maritime schools.

On the other hand, petitioner claimed that the alleged libelous statements are privileged communications since as president of the seafarers union and editor-in-chief of its publication "Tinig Marino," it is his moral duty and responsibility to help the government bring about the reforms needed in maritime education.

After conducting the preliminary investigation of the complaints, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu issued a joint resolution dated October 31, 1997 finding probable cause to charge petitioner with the crime of libel. The complaints against the other respondents were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.

Consequently, on December 4, 1997, Cebu 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Eric F. Menchavez filed the corresponding Information for libel against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court of Bogo, Cebu, Branch 61.

Meanwhile, petitioner appealed the joint resolution to the Regional State Prosecutor. On January 2, 1998, in a letter addressed to the Provincial Prosecutor, the Regional State Prosecutor set aside the joint resolution and ordered the dismissal, of the complaint on the following grounds:

"x x x respondent's statements published in 'Tinig ng Marino' are not defamatory. Assuming they are, no presumption of malice can be drawn from them because respondent had a good intention and justifiable motive in making them. Besides, they are privileged communication. Finally, there is no proof of malice on respondent's part in making them."

On January 15, 1998, Cebu Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Mario Camomot filed with the trial court a motion to dismiss the Information. The complainant (now respondent), through counsel, filed an opposition. After hearing the motion to dismiss, the trial court denied the same in its Order dated February 19, 1998. It held, that the determination of whether the respondent (now petitioner) made the publication in good faith and whether it shall be considered as privileged communication should be left to the trial court.

On February 23, 1998, the Provincial Prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the information. The trial court granted the motion in its Order dated April 23, 1998.

Private respondent, through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the motion to withdraw the Information is a duplication of the motion to dismiss previously denied. On September 16, 1998, the trial court issued an Order granting the motion for reconsideration and lifting its Order of April 23, 1998. The Information was ordered reinstated.

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking the annulment of the trial court's Order 'dated September 16, 1998, and its Orders dated February 10, 1999 -and July 1999 which respectively denied petitioner's first and second motions for reconsideration.

In a Resolution dated October 28, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time. As computed by the appellate court, the petition was filed two (2) days late, thus:

"Since, as alleged in the petition, petitioner received the assailed Order dated 16 September 1998 on 06 October 1998 and filed his motion for reconsideration on 12 October 1998, six (6) days had elapsed. When he received the Order denying the motion for reconsideration on 26 February 1999 and filed a second motion for reconsideration, another 6 days had elapsed, or a total of 12 days. Deducting 12 days from 60 days, petitioner had 48 days left within which to file a petition for certiorari. Petitioner received the order denying his second motion for reconsideration on 29 July 1999, so that he had until 15 September 1999 within which to file the petition. Having filed the present petition only on 17 September 1999, clearly the same is late by two (2) days."

The requirement as to the period within which to file an appeal is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional.Failure to interpose a timely appeal within the 15 day reglementary period renders an order or decision final and executory unless during the said 15 days the aggrieved party moves for a reconsideration of said order or decision or appeals to the higher court.At the outset, it bears stressing that the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of the right must comply with the statute or rules.The rules, particularly the requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law, must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business. [1] cralaw While we may have sidestepped the rule on the statutory or reglementary period for filing an appeal, yet, we emphasized this caveat: "we cannot respond with alarcrity to every clamor of injustice and bend the rules to placate a vociferous protestor crying and claiming to be a victim of a wrong. It is only in highly meritorious cases that this Court opts not to strictly apply the rules and thus prevent a grave injustice from being done." [2] cralaw This exception does not obtain here.

The Court of Appeals, in the same Resolution of October 28, 1999, likewise pointed out that even if the petition was seasonably filed, it would still be dismissed for being deficient. It enumerated the deficiencies as follows:

"x x x the certification against non-forum shopping is signed by counsel for petitioner and not by petitioner himself, as required in Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; the amount of P622.00 remitted for the docketing and lawful fees is short of P308.00; and the People of the Philippines with the Solicitor General as its counsel is not included as party respondent, considering that the petition relates to the acts or omission of respondent Judge in Crim. Case No. B-00344."

To avoid the filing of multiple petitions and complaints involving the same issues before different courts, thereby needlessly clogging the already heavily burdened dockets of the courts, the Rules now require that petitions and complaints filed in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency should be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping executed by the petitioner. [3] cralaw It is mandatory that the certification against forum shopping be executed by the petitioner himself and not by the attorney. [4] cralaw In Far Eastern Shipping Company vs. Court of Appeals, [5] cralaw the Court stressed that the certification against forum shopping ordained under the Rules is to be executed by the petitioner, and not by counsel. Obviously, it is the petitioner, and not the counsel whose professional services have been retained for a particular case, who is in the best position to know whether he actually filed or caused the filing of a petition in that case. Hence, a certification against forum shopping by counsel is a defective certification. Under the Rules, it is a valid cause for dismissal of the petition.

As found by the Court of Appeals, it was petitioner's counsel who signed the certification against forum shopping. There is no showing that petitioner had authorized his counsel to sign the certification.

Failure to pay the appeal docket fee is a ground for dismissal of the appeal. [6] cralaw Here, the docket fee is short of P308.00. Appeal is not deemed perfected where appellant's court docket fee was not paid in full. The amount of the Appellate Court docket fee should be deposited in full within a period of fifteen days. [7] cralaw In the same way, if half only of the court's docket fees was deposited and the other half was tendered after the expiration of the period of appeal, no appeal is deemed perfected. [8] cralaw

The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the petition is defective and should have impleaded the People of the Philippines "considering that the petition relates to the acts of omissions of respondent judge in Criminal Case No. B-00344." What was assailed before the Court of Appeals was the Order of the lower court reinstating the Information for libel, a criminal case. Petitioner should have impleaded the People of the Philippines, being the real party in interest in criminal cases, represented by the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General brings or defends actions on behalf of the People of the Philippines once such actions are brought before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. [9] cralaw

Under Section 5, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. The prosecution of a criminal case is the responsibility of the public prosecutor and no one else. This is true even if a private prosecutor is allowed to assist him. [10] cralaw In the case at bar, it was the private prosecutor who sought to have the libel case revived by filing a motion for reconsideration.Such motion should have been dismissed by the trial court.

Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities. They may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. Rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation. But they help provide for a vital system of justice where suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner, at the prescribed time in a peaceful though adversarial confrontation before a judge whose authority litigants acknowledge. Public order and our system of justice are well served by a conscientious observance of the rules of procedure, x x x. [11] cralaw

We find no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals in dismissing the instant petition. Strict compliance with the mandatory rules of procedure is the established norm and any relaxation from that standard could only be an exception. Utter disregard of the rules cannot be justly rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. [12] cralaw

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Corporate Inn Hotel, et al. vs. Jennevie H. Lizo, G.R. No. 148279, May 27, 2004.

[2] cralaw Ibid.

[3] cralaw Section 2, Rule 42 in relation to Section 4, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

[4] cralaw Republic vs. Carmel Development Inc., 377 SCRA 459 (2002).

[5] cralaw 297 SCRA 30 (1998); see also Mendigorin vs. Cabantog, 387 SCRA 655 (2002).

[6] cralaw Dorego, et al. vs. Perez, et al., 22 SCRA 8 (1968).

[7] cralaw Chan vs. Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc., 26 SCRA 68 (1962).

[8] cralaw Ibid.; see also Lee vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-15027, 10 SCRA 65 (1964); Gambol & Burog vs. Hon. Barcelona, et al., 106 Phil 328, 330 (1959).

[9] cralaw People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Ernesto Mendoza, et al., 231 SCRA 264 (1994).

[10] cralaw Caes vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 179 SCRA 54 (1989), citing Herrero vs. Diaz, 75 Phil. 489.

[11] cralaw United Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. vs. United Pulp and Paper Chapter - Federation of Free Workers, G.R. No. 141117, March 25, 2004.

[12] cralaw Salome M. Castillo, etc. vs. Hon, Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 159971, March 25, 2004.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com