G.R. No. 193217 , February 26, 2014
Corazon Macapagal, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Corazon Macapagal was convicted of Estafa by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 9, in a Decision dated November 25, 2008, for misappropriating jewelry valued at ₱800,000.00. She received the decision on January 13, 2009, filed a timely motion for reconsideration, which was denied in an Order dated May 20, 2009, allegedly received on July 31, 2009. She then filed a Notice of Appeal on August 3, 2009, but the RTC denied it on June 29, 2010, for being filed out of time. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 directly with the Supreme Court, assailing the denial of her notice of appeal, her conviction for estafa, and the denial of her motion for reconsideration. The petition suffered from multiple procedural defects: it used the wrong mode of appeal (Rule 45 instead of Rule 65 for assailing the denial of an appeal), violated the hierarchy of courts, and failed to attach certified true copies of the assailed conviction decision and the order denying reconsideration as required. Despite Supreme Court Resolutions directing compliance with procedural rules and submission of required documents, petitioner and her counsel repeatedly failed to comply, with counsel citing heavy workload, inability to contact petitioner, and document destruction due to a typhoon.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for review on certiorari should be granted despite multiple procedural infirmities, including the use of an incorrect remedy, violation of the hierarchy of courts, failure to attach required documents, and repeated non-compliance with court orders.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The ruling was based on the following procedural grounds:
1. Wrong Mode of Appeal: Petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. A petition for review under Rule 45 is not the proper mode to assail an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal (such as the denial of her notice of appeal). The correct remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Filing under Rule 45 merits outright dismissal.
2. Violation of Hierarchy of Courts: Even if treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, it is dismissible for disregarding the hierarchy of courts. Direct resort to the Supreme Court is not allowed absent special, important, and compelling reasons, which were not present.
3. Failure to Attach Required Documents: The petition failed to attach clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed RTC Decision convicting her of estafa and the Order denying her motion for reconsideration, as mandatorily required by Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This failure is a sufficient ground for dismissal.
4. Repeated Disregard of Rules and Court Orders: Petitioner and her counsel repeatedly failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s directives to submit required documents (such as a proper affidavit of service, verification, certification of non-forum shopping, and counsel’s contact details) and to file a Reply to the respondent’s Comment, despite being given opportunities and extensions. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the law’s procedural rules.
The Court underscored that while cases should ideally be decided on their merits, procedural rules are not to be disregarded. Counsel has a duty to follow the requisites for appeal, and any error in compliance may be fatal to the client’s cause. The petition was denied due to these fatal procedural shortcomings.