Dimarucot vs. People

A criminal appeal may be dismissed for abandonment when the appellant fails to file the appellant’s brief despite repeated extensions, and the absence of a show-cause notice is cured where the appellant files a motion for reconsideration and later takes no steps to reinstate the appeal; counsel’s negligence in failing to file the brief binds the client absent gross negligence or clear abandonment.

Petitioner Gregorio Dimarucot y Garcia was charged in Criminal Case No. 98-M-98 before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, under an Information alleging that on August 18, 1997, in Malolos, Bulacan, he, armed with an iron pipe and with intent to kill Angelito Rosini y Go, attacked and hit Rosini on the head with the pipe, with treachery and evident premeditation, inflicting physical injuries that ordinarily would have caused death but did not produce it because of timely and able medical assistance. After trial, on September 11, 2006, the RTC promulgated its Decision convicting petitioner of the lesser offense of frustrated homicide and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day, as maximum, of imprisonment, and ordering him to pay Angelito Rosini y Go P19,110.65 for hospitalization/medical bills and P36,000.00 as loss of income, with costs against the accused.

Petitioner appealed to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 30466. Upon receiving the notice to file the appellant’s brief, petitioner through his counsel de parte requested and was granted an additional period of twenty (20) days within which to file the brief. Three successive motions for extension followed, all granted by the CA. The last extension expired on June 6, 2007, but no appellant’s brief was filed.

On August 29, 2007, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal, noting the JRD verification report dated July 24, 2007 that the accused-appellant failed to file his appellant’s brief within the reglementary period which expired on June 6, 2007; the CA considered the appeal abandoned and dismissed it pursuant to Section 1(e), Rule 50, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, and his counsel admitted that he was at fault in failing to file the appellant’s brief due to personal problems emanating from his wife’s recent surgical operation; counsel prayed that petitioner be allowed to file the appellant’s brief within seven (7) days or until October 4, 2007. By Resolution dated November 27, 2007, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration, finding petitioner’s allegations unpersuasive and noting that the intended appellant’s brief was not at all filed on October 4, 2007. The August 29, 2007 Resolution became final and executory on January 4, 2008, as per Entry of Judgment.

On May 8, 2008, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to reconsider the August 29, 2007 Resolution, to expunge it from the Book of Entries of Judgment, and to be given a final period of thirty (30) days to file the appellant’s brief. He reiterated that his failure to file the brief was solely the fault of his lawyer, who was reportedly suffering from personal problems and depression, and cited his advanced age (he would turn 76 on May 30, 2008) and medical condition (hypertension with cardiovascular disease and pulmonary emphysema), attaching copies of his birth certificate, medical certificate, and certifications from the barangay and church minister. The CA denied the omnibus motion in its Resolution dated July 23, 2008, holding that petitioner is bound by the mistakes and negligence of his counsel; that the personal problems of counsel arising from his wife’s surgical operation are not the mistake or negligence contemplated by law as to warrant reconsideration of the dismissal; and that because petitioner did not file a petition before the SC to assail the August 29, 2007 and November 27, 2007 Resolutions, the August 29, 2007 Resolution attained finality and entry of judgment was in order.

The SC noted repeated non-observance by petitioner and his counsel of the reglementary periods for filing motions and perfecting appeal. While still at the trial stage, petitioner’s motion to admit and demurrer to evidence was denied as it was not seasonably filed, because although petitioner was granted fifteen (15) days from August 8, 2001 within which to file a demurrer to evidence, he filed his motion to dismiss only on September 4, 2001. Before the CA, petitioner and his counsel filed no less than four (4) motions for extension to file the brief, which was never filed nor attached to the motion for reconsideration of the August 29, 2007 Resolution. Even when petitioner filed the Omnibus Motion on May 8, 2008, no appellant’s brief was attached. Petitioner also did not file any petition before the SC questioning the validity of the August 29, 2007 Resolution and the November 27, 2007 denial of his motion for reconsideration.

• Negligence of Counsel: Petitioner argued that his failure to file the appellant’s brief was solely the fault of his counsel, who was suffering from personal problems and depression, and that he should not be made to suffer for counsel’s negligence.
• Relaxation of Rules: Petitioner cited his advanced age and medical condition and sought a final period of thirty (30) days to file the appellant’s brief, in effect asking the CA and the SC to relax the rules.

• Dismissal of Appeal Without Notice: Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief despite the absence of a notice to show cause.
• Finality of Dismissal: Whether the CA properly denied petitioner’s omnibus motion and upheld the finality of the August 29, 2007 Resolution.
• Negligence of Counsel: Whether petitioner may be exempted from the binding effect of his counsel’s negligence in failing to file the appellant’s brief.

• Dismissal of Appeal Without Notice: No. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion; the absence of a show-cause notice was cured by petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and his subsequent inaction, and dismissal for failure to file the brief was proper.
• Finality of Dismissal: No. The August 29, 2007 Resolution became final and executory on January 4, 2008; the May 8, 2008 Omnibus Motion was filed four months after finality and was too late.
• Negligence of Counsel: No. The negligence and mistakes of counsel bind the client; the exceptions for gross negligence or outright deprivation of liberty or property through a technicality are not present.

• Dismissal of Appeal Without Notice: Section 8, paragraph 1, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that the CA may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by the Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio. The phrase “with notice to the appellant” means that a notice must first be furnished the appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed, so that the appellate court may determine whether the reasons given are satisfactory. In this case, there was no showing that petitioner was served with such notice. Nevertheless, the SC held that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the CA in considering the appeal abandoned. Dismissal of an appeal without notice is not by itself an indication of grave abuse; where the appellant files a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, states the reasons for the failure to file the brief, and the appellate court denies the motion after considering those reasons, the dismissal is proper. Likewise, where the appeal is dismissed without prior notice but the appellant takes no steps to have it reinstated, such indifference and inaction amounts to abandonment and renunciation of the right to prosecute the appeal. Here, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, the CA considered and denied it, and petitioner did not file a petition before the SC to question the August 29, 2007 and November 27, 2007 Resolutions. The non-compliance with the notice requirement was thereby cured. The SC also noted the repeated non-observance of reglementary periods: the demurrer to evidence was filed late, four extensions were granted but no brief was filed, and no brief was attached to the motion for reconsideration or the Omnibus Motion. Petitioner was properly declared to have abandoned his appeal.

• Finality of Dismissal: The August 29, 2007 Resolution dismissing the appeal became final and executory on January 4, 2008, as per Entry of Judgment. Petitioner did not file any petition before the SC questioning the validity of that Resolution and the November 27, 2007 denial of his motion for reconsideration. It was therefore too late for petitioner to file the Omnibus Motion on May 8, 2008, which was four (4) months after the finality of the resolution dismissing the appeal. Having been afforded the opportunity to seek reconsideration and setting aside of the CA’s motu proprio dismissal, and having failed to act to have his appeal reinstated after the denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner cannot impute error or grave abuse of discretion to the CA in upholding the finality of its dismissal order.

• Negligence of Counsel: The negligence and mistakes of counsel are binding on the client. There are exceptions: when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; when the application of the general rule results in the outright deprivation of one’s property or liberty through a technicality; or where the interests of justice so require. For a claim of counsel’s gross negligence to prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the client’s cause must be shown. Counsel’s failure to file the appellant’s brief may plausibly qualify as simple negligence, but it does not amount to gross negligence justifying annulment of the proceedings. The SC found no reason to exempt petitioner from the general rule. The admitted inability of counsel to attend fully and ably to the prosecution of the appeal should have prompted petitioner to be more vigilant and replace counsel with a more competent lawyer. Instead, petitioner continued to allow counsel to represent him on appeal and even up to the SC. Diligence is required not only from lawyers but also from their clients.

• Dismissal of appeal for failure to file appellant’s brief — Under Section 8, paragraph 1, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, the CA may motu proprio dismiss a criminal appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the prescribed time, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio. The dismissal requires notice to the appellant, but the absence of such notice is cured where the appellant files a motion for reconsideration and the CA considers his reasons, or where the appellant takes no steps to have the appeal reinstated. The SC applied this doctrine in upholding the CA’s dismissal despite the absence of a show-cause notice.
• Right to appeal is a statutory privilege — The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege that may be exercised only in accordance with the law. A party who seeks to avail of the right must comply with the requirements of the Rules; failure to do so results in loss of the right to appeal. The SC applied this in denying petitioner relief after he failed to file the appellant’s brief despite extensions.
• Negligence of counsel binds the client — The general rule is that the negligence and mistakes of counsel bind the client. Exceptions exist: (1) where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) where the application of the rule results in the outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property through a technicality; or (3) where the interests of justice so require. For gross negligence to be a ground, clear abandonment of the client’s cause must be shown. The SC applied this doctrine in holding that counsel’s failure to file the appellant’s brief was not gross negligence and that petitioner was bound by it.
• Finality of judgment — Once a judgment or resolution becomes final and executory, it can no longer be disturbed. The SC applied this in holding that the May 8, 2008 Omnibus Motion was filed four months after the August 29, 2007 Resolution had become final on January 4, 2008, and was therefore too late.

• "The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in accordance with the law." — The SC used this to explain why petitioner lost his appeal after failing to comply with the Rules despite repeated extensions.
• "The negligence and mistakes of counsel are binding on the client." — The SC rejected petitioner’s plea that his counsel’s personal problems excused the failure to file the appellant’s brief.
• "For a claim of counsel’s gross negligence to prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the client’s cause must be shown." — The SC found that counsel’s failure to file the brief was simple negligence, not gross negligence amounting to clear abandonment.
• "Non-compliance with the requirement of notice or show cause order before the motu proprio dismissal under Section 8, paragraph 1 of Rule 124 had thereby been cured." — The SC held that the absence of a show-cause notice did not invalidate the dismissal because petitioner sought reconsideration and later took no steps to reinstate the appeal.

• Redeña vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146611, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 389 — Quoted for the rule that counsel’s negligence binds the client and for the exceptions; also for the standard that gross negligence requires clear abandonment.
• Polintan vs. People, G.R. No. 161827, April 21, 2009, 586 SCRA 111 — Cited for the binding effect of counsel’s negligence and for the rule that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege.
• Salvador vs. Reyes, 85 Phil. 12 (1949) — Cited for the principle that where an appeal is dismissed without prior notice but the appellant takes no steps to reinstate it, such indifference amounts to abandonment.
• Masas vs. People, G.R. No. 177313, December 19, 2007, 541 SCRA 280 — Cited for the notice requirement under Section 8, paragraph 1, Rule 124.
• Cariño vs. Espinoza, G.R. No. 166036, June 19, 2009, 590 SCRA 43 — Cited for the exceptions to the rule that counsel’s negligence binds the client.
• Lumbre vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160717, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 419 — Cited for the rule that diligence is required not only from lawyers but also from their clients.
• Spouses Ortiz vs. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 95 (1998) — Cited for the rule that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the Rules.
• Trans International vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128421, January 26, 1998, 285 SCRA 49 — Cited for the rule that strict compliance with the Rules is indispensable for the orderly and speedy disposition of justice.

• Section 8, paragraph 1, Rule 124, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended — The CA may motu proprio dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the prescribed time, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio, with notice to the appellant. Applied: the CA’s dismissal was upheld, and the absence of notice was cured by petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and inaction.
• Section 1(e), Rule 50, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure — The CA invoked this provision in dismissing the appeal as abandoned for failure to file the appellant’s brief. Applied: the dismissal was the antecedent order affirmed by the SC.
• Section 23, Rule 119, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended — Cited in relation to petitioner’s demurrer to evidence being denied as not seasonably filed. Applied: the SC considered this as part of petitioner’s repeated non-observance of reglementary periods.
• Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended — Governs the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner. Applied: the SC treated the petition as the mode of review and denied it for lack of merit.