ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 125451.August 22, 2001]

MU�OZ, et al. vs. CA et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 22 2001.

G.R. No. 125451 (Marciana Mu�oz, et al. vs. Court of Appeals & Ofelia Santos.)

After this Court rendered the Decision in this case acquitting petitioner of the charge of theft, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Motion for Clarification posing the query whether the Court can validly recall the entry of judgment it earlier issued and later render judgment reversing the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals. Private respondent Ofelia Santos filed her own Motion for Clarification joining the Solicitor General and adopting the latter's arguments. Petitioner was required to comment on the Motions for Clarification. In her Comment, petitioner pointed out that none of the Resolutions of this Court attained finality in view of the motions for reconsideration she filed.

It will be recalled that the petition was initially denied on September 18, 1996 for late filing. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, whereupon this Court required respondents to file their comments thereon. On March 5, 1997, this Court denied the motion for reconsideration with finality. Petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration, and again this Court required respondents to comment. Meanwhile, private respondent's motion for entry of judgment was denied. On October 6, 1997, this Court denied the second motion for reconsideration and ordered entry of judgment to be made.

On December 1, 1997, this Court, upon motion of petitioner, reconsidered its Resolutions of September 18, 1997 and October 6, 1997, and recalled the entry of judgment. Subsequently, after a thorough deliberation of the allegations, issues and arguments of the instant petition, this Court gave due course thereto and required the parties to file their respective memoranda.

On January 20, 2000, this Court rendered its Decision acquitting petitioner of the crime charged.

It appears from the foregoing that although the petition for review was, initially dismissed for having been filed late, this Court eventually saw the validity of petitioner's arguments which prompted it to reopen the case and resolve the same on its merits, rather than on mere procedural considerations. In the end, this Court chose to overlook petitioner's inadvertence in filing the petition beyond the reglementary period, for good reason as it turned out inasmuch as it found that petitioner's guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. In so doing, this Court prevented a miscarriage of justice. Indeed, the allowance of tardy appeals is well within this Court's inherent power to suspend adjective rules (Kathy-O Enterprises vs. NLRC, 286 SCRA 729, 738 [1998]). In a recent case, it was held:

It is within the inherent power of the Court to suspend its own rules in a particular case in order to do justice. Considering the obvious merit of petitioner's cause and the unusual circumstances present in this case, the procedural miscalculation on the part of petitioner may be overlooked. For equitable considerations, we have relaxed the application of otherwise stringent rules by giving due course to appeals filed out of time, treating petitions for certiorari as petitions for review, and remanding cases for trial even though their previous dismissal had become final (Anacleto vs. Van Twest, G.R. No. 131411, August 29, 2000).

ACCORDINGLY, private respondent's prayer for the dismissal of this petition and the reinstatement of the entry of judgment is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE