GR 183373; (January, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 183373 ; January 30, 2009
GILDA C. ULEP, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Gilda C. Ulep, a government employee serving as a money order teller at the Fort Bonifacio Post Office with a salary grade lower than 27, was charged and convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 132, for the crime of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. She was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty and ordered to pay a fine and indemnity. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in the trial court, stating she was appealing the judgment on the grounds that it was contrary to law and evidence. The trial court issued an order directing the records to be forwarded to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that under PD 1606, as amended by RA 8249, an appeal from the RTC judgment in such a case, involving a public employee with a salary grade lower than 27, falls within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The CA dismissed the appeal outright pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, contending the CA should have ordered the transfer of the records to the Sandiganbayan instead of dismissing the appeal, especially since her notice of appeal did not specify a court and it was the RTC that ordered the records sent to the CA. The CA denied reconsideration. Petitioner’s petition for review to the Supreme Court was initially denied, prompting this motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal outright for lack of jurisdiction instead of ordering the transfer of the case records to the Sandiganbayan.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration. It set aside its prior resolution and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the requirement for an appellant to indicate the court to which the appeal is being interposed in a notice of appeal is merely directory, and failure to comply or an error in the court indicated is not fatal to the appeal, citing Heirs of Pizarro v. Consolacion. The Court found petitioner’s failure to designate the proper forum was inadvertent and not a dilatory tactic. The trial court was duty-bound to forward the records to the proper forum, the Sandiganbayan, and its error in ordering them sent to the CA prejudiced the petitioner. The Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to remand the records to the RTC for transmission to the Sandiganbayan and issued a warning to the Presiding Judge of the RTC branch.