GR 247661; (June, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 247661, June 15, 2020
Deepak Kumar, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Deepak Kumar was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City in a Joint Decision dated August 18, 2016, for violating Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Law). He was sentenced to penalties including imprisonment and ordered to pay damages. Kumar was absent during the promulgation of judgment. His counsel of record received a copy of the decision on August 23, 2016. No motion or pleading was filed thereafter, causing the decision to lapse into finality. An entry of judgment was made, and notice was served on his counsel on September 8, 2016. Approximately a year and a half later, on March 14, 2018, a new law firm filed an Entry of Appearance with Notice of Appeal. The RTC, in an Order dated March 27, 2018, denied the Notice of Appeal as the decision had become final. Kumar’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed in a Decision dated November 23, 2018, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA denied his Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 21, 2019. Kumar subsequently filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the Regional Trial Court Judge in refusing to entertain petitioner’s Notice of Appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied due course to the Petition. The Court held that a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, granted only for special and important reasons as required by Rule 45, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. The Petition failed to present any consideration of such character to warrant the exercise of the Court’s power of judicial review. The Court emphasized that the remedy under Rule 45 is an appeal by certiorari limited to questions of law, and the petitioner must strictly comply with procedural requisites. The RTC decision had already attained finality after the reglementary period to appeal lapsed without any action from the petitioner. The CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in denying the belated Notice of Appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the assailed CA Decision and Resolution.