GR 195547; (December, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 195547, December 02, 2015
Ma. Corazon M. Ola, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Ma. Corazon M. Ola, along with co-accused Manuel Hurtada and Aida Ricarse, was charged with estafa under Article 315(2) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly defrauding Elizabeth T. Lauzon of ₱420,000.00 through false representations of authority to sell a parcel of land in Las Piñas City. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted them of other forms of swindling under Article 316. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Appellant’s Brief. The CA denied this motion in a Resolution dated September 9, 2010, for having been filed out of time. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied. She subsequently filed a “Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for [Extension of Time] to File for Vacation of Resolution or Appropriate Pleading,” which the CA denied, treating it as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA’s interlocutory resolutions denying petitioner’s motion to file an amended brief.
RULING
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the proper remedy from the CA’s assailed resolutions was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court distinguished between a final order, which disposes of the case or a stage thereof, and an interlocutory order, which resolves incidental matters and leaves the main case pending. The CA’s resolutions, which merely denied petitioner’s procedural motion to amend her brief, did not terminate the appeal or dispose of the case on the merits. They were interlocutory orders, as the criminal appeal remained pending for resolution.
Consequently, petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. A petition for review under Rule 45 is an improper remedy to assail interlocutory orders. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice, and the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the law. The procedural misstep is fatal to the petition. The denial is without prejudice to the CA’s resolution of the main criminal appeal on its merits, which the Supreme Court directed to be done with dispatch.