Teh vs. People

Failure to attach plain copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record supporting the petition and to give a written explanation for resort to non-personal service warrants dismissal of a petition for review. Petitioner admitted both omissions, leaving no basis to disturb the Court of Appeals' dismissal under Section 2, Rule 42 and Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Gertrudes Teh served as an area manager of Rodson's Collection Center, which sells personal products such as ladies' T-shirts and perfumes, men's cologne, care soap and shading strip. Under her were several dealers, including Josalie Baguio. Under the center's "ride on" system, an area manager was allowed in certain instances to withdraw stocks for sale in the name of a dealer, provided both signed a trust receipt agreement obligating them to remit proceeds within a specified time or return unsold items.

Gertrudes Teh and Josalie Baguio were charged with estafa before the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Branch 2, Davao City, in Criminal Case No. 45,542-B-96. The Information alleged that on or about December 18, 1995, in Davao City, they received on consignment from Rodson's Collection Center, represented by Elizabeth E. Maridable, goods worth P1,583.00 with the express obligation to sell the items and remit the proceeds or return the goods if unsold. Upon arraignment, Teh, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty, while Baguio remained at large.

According to the prosecution, Teh and Baguio withdrew on December 18, 1995 several items consisting of men's cologne, soap and other sundries worth P1,583.00, with both signing the required trust receipt agreement. The agreement required remittance of the proceeds within a specified time or return of unsold items to Rodson's Collection Center. Despite several demands, neither remitted the proceeds nor returned the goods.

Petitioner, for her part, denied receiving any item and maintained that although she signed the trust receipt agreement, she did so only to identify herself as Baguio's area manager. The stocks withdrawn were allegedly for the account of Baguio alone.

The charge was thus brought after the failure to remit or return despite demands. The trial court found that both accused signed the trust receipt agreement and failed to remit proceeds or return the goods worth P1,583.00 despite demands, supporting the estafa charge under Article 315(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Liability for Estafa: Petitioner contended that while she signed the trust receipt agreement, she did so only for the purpose of identifying herself as the area manager of Josalie Baguio, denied receiving any item, and maintained that the withdrawn stocks were for Baguio's account.
• Compliance with Procedural Rules: Petitioner submitted that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that she failed to comply with Section 2, Rule 42 and Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
• Absence of Prejudice: Petitioner admitted non-compliance with the service rule but contended that no prejudice was caused to the parties by her non-compliance.

• Propriety of Dismissal: Respondent, through the Solicitor General, maintained that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. CR No. 23482.

• Propriety of Dismissal: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for review for failure to comply with Section 2, Rule 42 and Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

• Propriety of Dismissal: No. Dismissal was proper, petitioner having admittedly violated Section 2, Rule 42 on required attachments and Section 11, Rule 13 on explanation for non-personal service.

• Propriety of Dismissal: A petition for review must be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the lower courts' judgments certified correct by the Regional Trial Court clerk, plus plain copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record supporting its allegations. Petitioner herself admitted that only certified true copies of the RTC and MTCC Decisions were attached, without copies of pleadings below or other material portions of the record. Service and filing of pleadings and other papers must be done personally whenever practicable, with resort to other modes accompanied by a written explanation, violation of which may cause the paper to be considered not filed. Petitioner likewise admitted failure to comply with that requirement, and the claim of absence of prejudice does not cure the defects. Both violations warranted dismissal, so no error was committed in dismissing the petition and denying reconsideration.

• Form and Contents of Petition for Review — A petition for review under Rule 42 must be filed in seven legible copies and must be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, together with plain copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record supporting the allegations. Applied here, the omission of pleadings and material portions, admitted by petitioner who attached only the two lower court Decisions, rendered the petition insufficient in form and dismissible.
• Priorities in Modes of Service and Filing — Under Rule 13, service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally whenever practicable, and resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why personal service or filing was not done, with violation possibly causing the paper to be considered not filed. Applied here, petitioner's admitted failure to give any written explanation for non-personal service independently supported dismissal, notwithstanding the assertion that no prejudice resulted.

• "be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition." — States the Rule 42 attachment requirement whose admitted breach grounded the dismissal.
• "Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed." — States the Rule 13 personal-service priority and explanation requirement likewise violated by petitioner.
• "Clearly, petitioner violated both provisions quoted above which warrants the dismissal of her petition by the Court of Appeals." — Expresses the decisive conclusion that the combined procedural violations justified dismissal.
• "We thus rule that in dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. CR No. 23482, the Court of Appeals did not commit any error." — Announces affirmance of the appellate court's dismissal and denial of reconsideration.

• Section 2, Rule 42, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires a petition for review to include specified contents and to attach certified copies of both lower courts' judgments or final orders plus plain copies of pleadings and material record portions supporting the allegations; applied to find petitioner's filing insufficient where only the MTCC and RTC Decisions were attached.
• Section 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires personal service and filing whenever practicable and a written explanation when another mode is used, with violation as possible ground to treat the paper as not filed; applied to find a further dismissible defect where petitioner gave no explanation for non-personal service.
• Article 315(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines estafa through misappropriation or conversion with abuse of confidence of goods received on consignment with obligation to remit proceeds or return the goods; applied by the MTCC as the basis for conviction upon finding that petitioner signed the trust receipt agreement and failed to remit or return.

Panganiban, Chairman, Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Garcia, JJ., concur.