Macapagal vs. People

An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal is not a final order from which a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 lies; the proper remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, and direct recourse to the Supreme Court is allowed only upon a showing of special, important, and compelling reasons. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised strictly in accordance with the procedural rules, and failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed judgment is, by itself, a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition.

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Manila, convicted petitioner Corazon Macapagal of Estafa for misappropriating for her own benefit ₱800,000.00 worth of unreturned and unsold jewelry. Petitioner received the decision on January 13, 2009, and moved for reconsideration or new trial. The motion was denied in an Order dated May 20, 2009, which petitioner allegedly received only on July 31, 2009. She filed a notice of appeal on August 3, 2009, but the trial court, in an Order dated June 29, 2010, denied the notice for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. Petitioner then sought direct review from the Supreme Court.

• On November 25, 2008, the RTC convicted petitioner of Estafa for misappropriating ₱800,000.00 worth of jewelry received on consignment. The trial court found that petitioner had converted the pieces for her own benefit.
• Petitioner received the decision on January 13, 2009. She moved for reconsideration and/or new trial, which was denied in an Order dated May 20, 2009. Petitioner claimed she received the denial order only on July 31, 2009.
• On August 3, 2009, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. In an Order dated June 29, 2010, the RTC denied the notice of appeal for having been filed beyond the 15‑day reglementary period, counting from the date petitioner received the denial of her motion for reconsideration.
• Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, imputing grave error to the trial court in denying her notice of appeal, convicting her, and denying her motion for reconsideration.

• Denial of Notice of Appeal: Petitioner maintained that the trial court gravely erred in disallowing her appeal because her notice of appeal was timely filed.
• Conviction for Estafa: Petitioner argued that the RTC erred in finding her guilty of Estafa, asserting that the evidence did not support the conviction.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner contended that the trial court should have granted her motion for reconsideration and/or new trial.

• Proper Mode of Review: Whether a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the correct remedy to assail an order disallowing an appeal in a criminal case.
• Hierarchy of Courts: Whether the Supreme Court should entertain the petition directly despite the availability of recourse in the lower courts.
• Compliance with Attachment Requirements: Whether the failure to attach a certified true copy of the assailed decision and the order denying reconsideration warrants dismissal.
• Repeated Non‑Compliance with Court Directives: Whether petitioner’s persistent disregard of the Court’s resolutions justifies denial of the petition.

• Proper Mode of Review: The petition was an improper recourse. The Order denying the notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from which a petition for review under Rule 45 may be taken. The disallowance of a notice of appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal itself. The proper remedy to elevate the matter is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, not an appeal by certiorari. The error in the mode of review rendered the petition dismissible outright.
• Hierarchy of Courts: Even if the petition were treated as one for certiorari under Rule 65, it would still be dismissible for violating the hierarchy of courts. Although the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, direct resort to the Court is permitted only when special, important, and compelling reasons are specifically and clearly set out in the petition. No such reasons were alleged or shown.
• Compliance with Attachment Requirements: The petition was fatally defective because petitioner failed to attach a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the RTC decision convicting her and the order denying her motion for reconsideration. Rule 45, Section 4 mandates that the petition be accompanied by such copies, and failure to comply is an independent ground for dismissal under Section 5. The principal purpose is to enable the Court to review the petition without needing to retrieve the lower court’s records.
• Repeated Non‑Compliance with Court Directives: The petition was further doomed by petitioner’s and counsel’s repeated disregard of the Court’s resolutions. The Court required compliance with the Rules concerning affidavit of service, verification, certification against forum shopping, and counsel’s contact details. Despite multiple directives and show‑cause orders, no satisfactory compliance was made; counsel eventually sought to be relieved due to his inability to contact petitioner, and petitioner herself failed to respond to the Court’s resolution requiring her comment. Such conduct demonstrated a lack of respect for the rules and the Court’s authority.

The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor an element of due process; it is a statutory privilege that must be exercised strictly in the manner and within the period prescribed by law. Procedural rules are not trivial technicalities and must be followed with fidelity to ensure the orderly and expeditious administration of justice. The merits of the estafa conviction were never reached due to these insurmountable procedural defects.

• Proper remedy from disallowance of appeal — An order dismissing or disallowing an appeal is not appealable by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The appropriate remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, grounded on grave abuse of discretion. (Citing Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso)
• Hierarchy of courts in certiorari — Although the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court to issue writs of certiorari, direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction requires a showing of special, important, and compelling reasons clearly and specifically alleged in the petition. Absent such showing, the petition will be dismissed for disregard of the hierarchy of courts. (Citing Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano v. Benemerito)
• Mandatory attachment of certified true copy of assailed decision — A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 must be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the judgment, final order, or resolution subject of the petition. Non‑compliance is a sufficient ground for outright dismissal under Rule 45, Section 5. (Citing Spouses Lanaria v. Planta and B.E. San Diego, Inc. v. Alzul)
• Right to appeal is a statutory privilege — The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a component of due process. It is a procedural remedy of statutory origin that may be exercised only in the manner and within the periods prescribed by the enabling law. Any deviation is fatal to the party’s cause. (Citing Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso and Heirs of Teofila Gaudiano v. Benemerito)
• Strict adherence to procedural rules — Procedural rules are not harmless technicalities that may be discarded at will; they are essential instruments for the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Parties and counsel must comply with them with greater fidelity in the face of congested court dockets. (Citing Basuel v. Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau)

• “The disallowance of the notice of appeal signifies the disallowance of the appeal itself. A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is a mode of appeal of a lower court’s decision or final order direct to the Supreme Court. However, the questioned Order denying her notice of appeal is not a decision or final order from which an appeal may be taken.” — This passage articulates why an order denying a notice of appeal cannot be the subject of a Rule 45 petition and must instead be challenged via Rule 65.
• “The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a procedural remedy of statutory origin and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its exercise.” — This oft‑repeated formulation underscores the strict jurisdictional and procedural boundaries governing appeals.
• “In these times when court dockets are clogged with numerous litigations, parties have to abide by these rules with greater fidelity in order to facilitate the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” — The pragmatic justification for the rigid enforcement of procedural rules.

• Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, 433 Phil. 844 (2002) — Followed as controlling authority that the denial of a notice of appeal cannot be elevated via Rule 45, and that the proper remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Also relied upon for the principle that counsel must ascertain the correct mode and forum of appeal.
• Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano v. Benemerito, 545 Phil. 311 (2007) — Applied to reiterate that direct resort to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari requires special, important, and compelling reasons, and that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege to be strictly observed.
• Spouses Lanaria v. Planta, 563 Phil. 400 (2007) — Followed on the mandatory requirement of attaching a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed judgment.
• B.E. San Diego, Inc. v. Alzul, 551 Phil. 841 (2007) — Cited for the rationale that the attachment requirement enables the Court to review the petition without depending on lower court records.
• Basuel v. Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB), 526 Phil. 608 (2006) — Relied upon for the proposition that procedural rules must be strictly followed to facilitate orderly and expeditious case disposition.

• Rule 45, Sections 4 and 5, Rules of Court — Section 4 requires the petition to be accompanied by a certified true copy of the assailed judgment or final order. Section 5 provides that failure to comply with the attachment requirement is sufficient ground for dismissal. The petition was dismissed for non‑compliance with these provisions.
• Rule 122, Sections 2, 3, and 6, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — These sections govern where, how, and when an appeal is taken. The disallowance of the notice of appeal was premised on petitioner’s failure to file within 15 days as required, rendering the appeal untimely. The Court referenced these provisions to explain that the order denying the notice effectively terminated the appeal.

Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, and Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen concurred.

None.