GR 166980; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166980; April 4, 2007
Carmelo C. Bernardo, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and F.T. Ylang-Ylang Marketing Corporation, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Carmelo C. Bernardo was convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) for six counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). The MeTC rendered its decision in absentia after petitioner repeatedly failed to appear at trial. He later filed a Motion for New Trial, which was denied. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to a fine only. Petitioner then sought to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Review under Rule 42. He filed a Motion for Extension of Time, requesting a 30-day extension to file his petition. The CA granted only a 15-day extension, as per Section 1, Rule 42. Petitioner, apparently unaware of this limited grant, filed his petition 15 days beyond the extended deadline set by the CA. The appellate court dismissed the petition for being filed out of time and for failure to attach a certified true copy of the MeTC decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Review for being filed out of time.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The Court explained that procedural rules on reglementary periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. Under Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, the period for filing a petition for review from an RTC decision to the CA is 15 days from notice of the decision. The rule allows for one extension of time, not to exceed 15 days. The CA correctly granted only a 15-day extension, not the 30 days requested by petitioner. The reckoning of the extended period starts from the expiration of the original 15-day period, not from the next working day if that expiration date falls on a weekend or holiday, as clarified by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 09-94. Petitioner’s failure to file within the 15-day extension granted rendered his petition late. The CA’s dismissal on this ground was proper. The Court also noted that petitioner’s subsequent submission of an uncertified photocopy of the MeTC decision did not cure the fatal defect of late filing. The rules on appeal periods are strictly applied to ensure the orderly administration of justice, and the negligence of counsel binds the client.