G.R. No. 141854 ; October 15, 2008
ORLANDO APOSTOL, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JESUS G. BERSAMIRA, in his capacity as Judge of RTC, Branch 166, Pasig City, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Orlando Apostol, together with America Floro, was charged with Qualified Theft before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig. After posting bail and pleading not guilty, Apostol attended the initial hearings for the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence. However, he subsequently failed to appear at later hearings despite notices sent to his address on record. His counsel also began to be absent. Consequently, the trial court considered him to have waived his right to present evidence and to have jumped bail. The RTC rendered a decision in absentia on May 10, 1993, convicting Apostol of theft and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty. He was arrested over four years later, in October 1997. Apostol filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, arguing his constitutional right to due process was violated as he was not duly notified of the trial dates due to his counsel’s negligence and his change of residence. The RTC denied the motion, noting that subpoenas were consistently sent to his given address. His subsequent Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals was dismissed, which ruled that his non-appearance without legal explanation manifested an intention to jump bail. Apostol elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the RTC’s decision, which was rendered after a trial in absentia, thereby allegedly violating Apostol’s constitutional rights to due process, to be present at trial, and to bail.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals decision. The Court held that the special civil action of certiorari is a limited form of review restricted to resolving errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. As long as the courts below acted within their jurisdiction, any alleged errors in the exercise of their discretion amount to mere errors of judgment correctable by appeal, not by certiorari. The Court found that the RTC acted within its jurisdiction when it proceeded with the trial in absentia and rendered judgment after Apostol, despite due notice, repeatedly failed to appear without justification, which was construed as a waiver of his right to be present and a manifestation of jumping bail. His constitutional rights were not violated as the trial court complied with the procedural requirements for trial in absentia. The negligence of his counsel could not be invoked to set aside a final judgment under the circumstances.