G.R. No. 150276 ; February 12, 2008
CECILIA B. ESTINOZO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SIXTEENTH DIVISION, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cecilia Estinozo was charged with seven counts of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution established that in 1986, Estinozo, representing herself as an owner of Golden Overseas Employment, recruited several complainants from Sogod, Southern Leyte, for overseas work. She collected placement fees totaling P15,000 from each complainant, promising deployment by July 1986. When the complainants were not deployed as promised and their demands for refund were ignored despite executed promissory notes, they filed criminal complaints. The Regional Trial Court convicted Estinozo, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The CA found that the complainants positively identified Estinozo as the recruiter who falsely represented her capacity, inducing them to part with their money.
Estinozo’s defense was that she was merely an employee and secretary for FCR Recruitment Agency owned by Fe Corazon Ramirez, and that she merely remitted the collected fees to Ramirez. The CA rejected this, noting she never mentioned Ramirez during her recruitment activities and presented no evidence of such remittance. After the CA affirmed her conviction, Estinozo filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA denied as a prohibited pleading under its rules. Her subsequent Motion for Reconsideration of this denial was also rejected. Estinozo then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, arguing the CA gravely abused its discretion in denying her motions and that she should not be bound by her previous counsel’s negligence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration and her subsequent Motion for Reconsideration, thereby warranting the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the proper remedy from the CA’s affirmance of conviction was an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and is only available when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Here, Estinozo had the adequate remedy of filing a Rule 45 petition but lost it due to her counsel’s filing of a prohibited motion for extension. The negligence of counsel binds the client. The CA’s denial of the motion for extension, in strict application of procedural rules, was a legitimate exercise of jurisdiction, not a capricious or whimsical act constituting grave abuse of discretion. The Court found no arbitrariness in the CA’s actions, as its resolutions were in conformity with the Rules of Court and its Internal Rules. Thus, the petition for certiorari was an improper remedy.