G.R. No. 214865, August 19, 2015
ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosvee C. Celestial was employed as the “Accounting-in-Charge” of Glory Philippines, handling bank transactions and accounting ledgers. She was terminated in 2006 after it was discovered she made anomalous withdrawals from the company’s dollar account. Her modus operandi involved preparing withdrawal slips for company expenses, having the president, Akihiro Harada, sign them, photocopying the signed slips for company documentation, and then inserting additional figures on the original signed forms to withdraw a higher amount than intended, keeping the excess. The discrepancies between the photocopied slips and the actual amounts withdrawn were discovered, leading to the filing of six counts of qualified theft through falsification of commercial documents. The Regional Trial Court convicted her on all counts. She appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA directed her to file an appellant’s brief. Her counsel moved for and was granted extensions totaling 60 days, until February 26, 2014, to file the brief. However, the brief was not filed. On April 28, 2014, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the appeal for abandonment due to this failure. Petitioner claimed she did not personally receive this dismissal resolution, only learning of it upon receiving a July 17, 2014 Resolution with a Notice of Entry of Judgment stating the April 28 Resolution had become final. She filed an Omnibus Motion for reconsideration and to admit her appellant’s brief, arguing her counsel’s gross negligence and that she should be given an opportunity to appeal. The CA denied this motion in an October 10, 2014 Resolution. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for her failure to file the required appellant’s brief.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling the CA’s dismissal was in order. The Court held that notice to counsel is notice to the client, and the CA’s April 28, 2014 Resolution dismissing the appeal was duly received by petitioner’s counsel. The negligence of counsel in failing to file the brief within the granted extensions binds the client. The Court found the failure inexcusable as both counsel and petitioner were negligent; counsel failed despite extensions, and petitioner took no action to ensure compliance from the deadline until the dismissal. The CA properly exercised its discretion under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute. However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed by the trial court on substantive justice grounds, noting the proper penalty should be based on the converted peso value of the stolen amounts and the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on theft. The trial court’s penalty of “twenty (20) years of Reclusion Temporal for Each Count” was corrected, as the maximum penalty for theft under Article 309 cannot exceed twenty years. The case was remanded to the trial court for determination of the proper penalties for each count.