Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > July 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 181538 : July 20, 2011] LIBRADO CARINGAL V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND LEOVIGILDO C. ISABELA :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 20 July 2011, which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 181538 (Librado Caringal v. People of the Philippines, Honorable Court of Appeals and Leovigildo C. Isabela) � Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking the annulment of the Resolutions^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 05003.

On September 8, 1986, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas, Branch 12, rendered a Decision^[2] finding petitioner Librado Canngal and Eddie Luistro^[3] guilty of the crime of Theft of Large Cattle in Criminal Case No. LC-2284. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal^[4] dated June 22, 1987. On January 31, 1995, the CA promulgated a Decision^[5] affirming the trial court's decision in toto. No appeal or motion for reconsideration having been filed within the reglementary period, said Decision of the CA became final and executory on February 22, 1995^[6] and was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgments on April 12, 1996.^[7]

On August 22, 2007, or more than eleven (11) years later, petitioner filed with the CA a Motion with Leave of Court to Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration and said Motion for Reconsideration, praying for the reversal of the CA's Decision. The CA merely noted^[8]  the motion in view of the finality of the decision on February 22, 1995. On November 12, 2007, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, this time seeking to: a) have his motion for reconsideration filed on August 22, 2007 admitted and b) set aside the Entry of Judgment made on April 12, 1996 in the Book of Entries of Judgments on the ground that neither he nor his counsel received a copy of the CA's Decision dated January 31, 1995. On January 11, 2008, the CA issued the second challenged Resolution^[9] denying petitioner's motion for lack of merit. The CA found that Atty. David Calvario (Atty. Calvario) was petitioner's counsel of record at the time of the promulgation of the Decision and remained as such until the issuance of the January 11, 2008 resolution.

Hence, this present petition.

Petitioner argued that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the assailed resolutions considering that: a) The Decision of the CA dated January 31, 1995 has not attained finality because his counsel of record, Atty. Ernesto Vergara (Atty. Vergara) did not receive a copy of the said decision; b) A certain Atty. David Calvario was not his counsel of record at the time of the promulgation of the CA's Decision dated January 31, 1995; and c) He was denied his constitutional right to due process.

The petition is not meritorious. The petitioner failed to show grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the CA, in finding that Atty. Calvario was his counsel of record at the time of the promulgation of the CA Decision dated January 31, 1995. Records will show that prior to the issuance of the CA's Decision, the counsel of record of petitioner was Atty. Vergara. However, a letter^[10] dated March 29, 1988 was filed with the CA on April 20, 1988. The aforementioned letter was executed by petitioner and Eddie Luistro and addressed to Atty. Vergara, requesting that they be allowed to hire the services of a new lawyer who will handle their case. The letter also informed Atty. Vergara that they have already contacted a practicing lawyer in Manila to handle the case. Atty. Vergara acceded to petitioner's request. Clearly, petitioner is misleading the Court when he argued that Atty. Vergara was his counsel of record at the time of the promulgation of the CA's January 31, 1995 Decision. This is simply because as early as March 29, 1988, petitioner and Eddie Luistro have already decided to terminate the services of Atty. Vergara and to hire the services of a new lawyer.

Records will also show that after the execution of petitioner's letter dated March 29, 1988, an Entry of Appearance,^[11] as counsel for petitioner and Eddie Luistro, dated April 14, 1988, was filed by Atty. Calvario on April 20, 1988. On the same date, the Entry of Appearance and letter was filed. Atty. Calvario even filed a supplemental brief^[12]  for the petitioner and Eddie Luistro reinforcing their arguments in their brief earlier filed and submitting additional issues therein. Hence, Atty. Calvario appears to have knowledge of the case, which information can only be acquired from the petitioner and Eddie Luistro. Further, the CA's Resolution^[13]  dated April 28, 1988 noting the entry of appearance of Atty. Calvario as new counsel for petitioner and Eddie Luistro, in lieu of Atty. Vergara, was also furnished to Atty. Vergara through mail. Atty. Vergara never questioned the CA's Resolution, thus, reinforcing the validity of the CA's finding that Atty. Vergara was no longer petitioner's counsel at the time of the issuance of the January 31, 1995 Decision of the CA.

The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration and in subsequently issuing an Entry of Judgment. The Decision of the CA dated January 31, 1995 had already attained finality due to the failure of petitioner's counsel to file a timely appeal or motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period as provided by the rules. The CA merely complied with the provision of Section 10, Rule 51 of the Revised Rules of Court.^[14]

The petitioner cannot validly argue that he was denied his right to due process. It is settled that the failure to file an appeal from the decision rendering it final and executory is not a denial of due process. The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.^[15] 

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated October 30, 2007 and January 11, 2008 in CA-G.R.CR No. 05003 are AFFIRMED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
 

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, concurring; rollo, pp. 50, 52-53.

^[2] Rollo, pp. 16-28. 

^[3] Now deceased, as per page 3 of the Petition, rollo, p. 5. 

^[4] Rollo, p. 60. 

^[5] Penned by Associate Justice Lourdes Tayao-Jaguros with Associate Justices Jesus M. Elbinias and Jose C. De La Rama, concurring: rollo, pp. 30-40. 

^[6] CA records, p. 115. 

^[7] Id. at 117. 

^[8] Rollo, p. 50. 

^[9] Id. at 52-53. 

^[10] Id. at 57. 

^[11] Id. at 56. 

^[12] Id. at 42-55. 

^[13] Id. at 58. 

^[14] Entry of judgments and final resolutions. - If no appeal or motion for reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the judgment or final resolution shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of judgments. x x x 

^[15] Torres v. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 165408, January 15, 2010, 610 SCRA 134, 148.