Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
|
MERLIZA
A. MUÑOZ, |
|
G.R.
No. 162772 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
|
|
Chairperson, |
|
- versus - |
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
|
|
NACHURA, and |
|
|
|
REYES, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
PEOPLE
OF THE |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
March 14, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - x
D E
C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
By way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Merliza A. Muñoz (petitioner) assails the November 19, 2003 Resolution[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) sustaining her conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22); and the March 10, 2004 CA Resolution[2]
denying her Motion for Reconsideration.
The antecedent facts are as stated by the trial courts.
Petitioner is the wife of Ludolfo
P. Muñoz Jr. (Ludolfo),
owner and operator of L.P. Munoz Construction (Muñoz
Construction). On P500,000.00,
at 5% interest, from Sunwest Construction and
Development Corporation (Sunwest). Ludolfo issued to Sunwest a Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) check,
postdated P500,000.00.[3]
On P500,000.00,
drawn by petitioner[4] and postdated
On
On
In her P10,000,000.00,
including a 15% advance payment, for two river control projects, while Sunwest had a claim against Muñoz
Construction for P500,000.00.
Given that the claim of Muñoz Construction was bigger than that of Sunwest, petitioner treated the first claim as having
automatically offset, covered or paid the second claim as represented by the
amount of the RCBC check. This explains
why petitioner did “not give emphasis” anymore to the RCBC check, the amount of
which she considered as having been already settled. Petitioner reminded Sunwest
that it was made aware of the offsetting of the amount of the RCBC check as
early as
Upon a criminal complaint[13]
filed by Elizaldy S. Co, Sunwest
president, an Information[14]
was filed by the City Prosecutor before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC),
After trial, the MTCC rendered a Decision dated August 19,
2003,[16]
finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and
sentencing her to pay a fine of P200,000.00;
to pay Sunwest
P500,000.00, representing the amount of RCBC Check No. 0000057285, plus
interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum computed from April 23, 2001, the
date of the filing of the information, until fully paid; and to pay the costs. [17]
On appeal by petitioner, the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CA but the
latter dismissed it outright in the
(a) Failure to attach or
incorporate an Affidavit of Service as required under Section 13, Rule 13 in
relation to Section 3, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended; and
(b) Failure to furnish
copy of the petition and its annexes to the Office of the Solicitor General
which is the counsel of the People of the
With the denial by the CA of her Motion for
Reconsideration, petitioner is now before the Court raising the following
issues:
Whether or not the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals
gravely erred in dismissing the petition for review filed by herein petitioner
purely on technical grounds.
Whether or not the court a quo
gravely erred in convicting the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the
criminal complaint was filed by an unauthorized representative of the private
complainant corporation.
Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in
convicting the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the prosecution failed
to prove the element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds in or credit with
the drawee bank on the part of the petitioner.
Whether or not the court a quo
gravely erred when it held the petitioner civilly liable notwithstanding the
absence of authority of Elizaldy S. Co to file the
instant case for and in behalf of the private complainant corporation.[20]
The Court finds no merit in the
Petition.
Except in criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or death, an appeal
is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion. It may be availed of only in the manner
provided by law and the rules.[21]
Rule 42 prescribes the following
requirements for the filing with the CA of a petition for review from a
decision of the RTC:
Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. A
party desiring to appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered
in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for
review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said
Court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00
for costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a
copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and served within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or
of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in
due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount
of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the
expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of
Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which
to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except
for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (Emphasis supplied.)
Clearly, therefore, the timeliness of
a petition depends not only on its seasonable filing but also on the prompt
service of copy thereof on the adverse party and the RTC. Thus, the petition must be accompanied by proof of service as prescribed
under Rule 13, viz:
Section 13. Proof
of service. Proof of personal service shall consist of a written
admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the
affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place
and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall
consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with
section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be
made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office.
The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together
with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the
addressee.
Failure to serve copy of the petition
on the adverse party or to show proof of service thereof is a fatal defect,[22] for which the petition
can be dismissed under Section 3, Rule 42, thus:
Section 3. Effect
of failure to comply with requirements. The
failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements
regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for
costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents
which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the
dismissal thereof.
In the present case, petitioner failed
to serve copy of her petition on the Solicitor General as counsel of the
adverse party, the People of the
Petitioner did not even show substantial compliance
with the requirement of service of pleading.[25] Although she served copy of her Petition for Review on
Assistant City Prosecutor Catalino C. Serrano, the
latter was no longer counsel of the adverse party when the case was brought to the CA, nor was he specifically deputized or
designated by the Solicitor General to represent him or receive notices for
him.[26] Hence, service on the Assistant City
Prosecutor did not amount to service on the Solicitor General.[27]
However, petitioner argues that,
rather than dismiss her petition, the CA should have
advised her to correct the deficiency or taken the initiative of furnishing the
Solicitor General with a copy of the petition and requiring the latter to
comment on it.[28] Furthermore, petitioner appeals for
liberality in the treatment of her appeal, so that it may be decided on the
merits rather than on technicality.[29]
It is true that oftentimes the Court
applied the rules with flexibility in order that the merits of a case will be
fully adjudicated upon, not-withstanding its technical imperfections.[30] But what impels the
Court to do so is neither a party's empty invocations of liberality nor its
mechanical correction of the imperfections.[31] Rather, only a clear showing of prima facie
merit of the petition will persuade the Court to take the extraordinary effort of
setting aside its rules to give way to the imperfect petition.[32] After all, the rationale for liberality is to
bring to light the merits of the petition, unobstructed by mere deficiencies in
its form, such that if the petition has not an iota of merit in it, then there
is nothing for the Court to bring to light at all.
In the present case, while upon motion
for reconsideration, petitioner supplied what were lacking in her petition for
review filed with the CA,[33] she utterly failed to
convince the Court that the substantial
grounds cited therein far transcend its technical deficiencies as would justify
the resolution of her petition on its
merits rather than form.
A cursory assessment of the arguments
of petitioner is necessary.
First, petitioner insists that the
criminal case filed against her, as well as the civil case that was deemed
instituted with it, should have been dismissed for lack of authority of Elizaldy Co to file
the same on behalf of Sunwest, the payee of the RCBC
check.[34]
The issue of whether a corporate
officer may bring suit on behalf of his corporation for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is not novel.
In Tam Wing Tak v. Makasiar,[35] the Court
affirmed the dismissal of a criminal case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for lack of authority of the private complainant,
thus:
Second, it is not
disputed in the instant case that
We applied the same rule just
recently to Ilusorio v. Ilusorio,[37] which
involved a criminal complaint for robbery and qualified trespass.
However, it bears emphasis that in
both cases, the deficiency in the complaint was challenged by the accused at
the preliminary investigation stage, or before he entered a plea upon
arraignment. On the contrary, in the
present case, petitioner questioned the authority of Elizaldy
Co after arraignment and completion of the prosecution's presentation of
evidence. Thus, she is barred from raising such objection under Section 9, Rule
117 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. – The failure of the accused to assert any
ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information,
either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same
in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based
on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule.
The deficiency in the
complaint/information arising from the lack of authority of Elizaldy
Co was not jurisdictional. It did not
detract from the unquestioned authority of the Assistant City Prosecutor to
file the Information, nor impair the jurisdiction of the MTCC to act on the
same.[38]
Second, petitioner harps on the
purported lack of notice to her of the dishonor of the RCBC check. This
contention flies in the face of documentary evidence consisting of the
In fine, for deficiency in form and
for lack of showing that her appeal to the CA was meritorious, the petition for
review of petitioner was correctly dismissed by the CA.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and concurred in by Associate
Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria
and Rosmari D. Carandang; rollo, p. 29.
[2]
[3] MTCC Decision, rollo, p. 91; RTC Decision, id. at 99.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Rollo,
p. 58
[11]
[12] RTC Decision, id.
at 99-100; MTCC Decision, id. at
92.
[13]
[14]
[15] MTCC Decision, id.
at 90.
[16]
[17] Rollo, p 97.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Tamayo v. Court of Appeals, 467 Phil. 603, 607-608 (2004).
[22] Ferrer
v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 155025,
[23] Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book III
of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise
known as the 1987 Administrative Code.
[24] Castillo v. Monzon,
G.R. No. 143418, January 22, 2001 Resolution; Magcalas
v. Reyes, G.R. No. 136605, July 12, 1999 and April 7, 1999 Resolutions; Franco v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 136346, April 12, 1999 and January 20, 1999
Resolutions.
[25]
[26] See People of the
[27] Republic of the
[28] Petition, rollo, p. 15.
[29]
[30] Wee v. Galvez,
G.R. No. 147394,
[31] Clavecilla
v. Quitain, G.R. No. 147989,
[32] Makamanggagawa v.
Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corporation, G.R. No. 156613,
[33] CA rollo,
pp. 39-42.
[34] Petition, rollo, p. 17.
[35] 403
Phil. 391 (2001).
[36]
[37] G.R. No. 171659,
[38] Cf. People of the
[39] Supra at 12.