GR 150453; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150453 ; February 14, 2003
RAFAEL AMATORIO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rafael Amatorio was convicted of Homicide by the Regional Trial Court. Represented by Atty. Joelito Barrera, he appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). While the appeal was pending, Atty. Barrera died. The CA subsequently affirmed the conviction. A copy of the CA decision was received by the deceased counsel’s law office, starting the period for filing a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner alleges he was not informed of the decision nor of his counsel’s death until later.
Upon learning of the adverse decision, petitioner, now represented by new counsel Atty. Gerald Jacob, filed a “Motion for 30-day Extension to File Motion for Reconsideration” with the CA. The CA denied this motion, ruling that no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is allowed under the rules and that its decision had already become final and executory. Petitioner then filed a petition before the Supreme Court, initially and erroneously denominated as a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in denying petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, thereby refusing to reopen the period for appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court clarified that the proper remedy from the CA’s denial was a petition for review under Rule 45, not certiorari under Rule 65. Treating the petition as one under Rule 45, the Court found no merit. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of judgments and the procedural rules governing appeals. The CA decision became final after the reglementary period to appeal lapsed without petitioner filing a motion for reconsideration or appeal. The death of his counsel did not toll this period, as notice to counsel is notice to the client. The Court emphasized that a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of a CA decision is strictly prohibited under Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The CA therefore correctly denied the motion. The rules on finality of judgment are designed to end litigation, and exceptions are granted only under extraordinary circumstances not present here, such as a showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not established. The Court also admonished counsel for the erroneous mode of appeal.