Soria v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Dionisio Soria was found guilty of homicide by the trial court and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision with modification. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' decision. Subsequently, the entire rollo of the case, including the motion for reconsideration and the copy furnished to the Solicitor General, was lost. The Court of Appeals issued a resolution requiring the accused-appellant to submit six copies of his motion for reconsideration within ten days. This resolution was sent to Atty. Arnulfo F. Soller, the original counsel of record, by registered mail. Due to non-compliance, the Court of Appeals deemed the motion for reconsideration withdrawn. Attys. De Grano and Tobia, who filed the original motion, then filed an urgent motion praying for reconsideration of the withdrawal resolution and for a period of thirty days to file a new motion for reconsideration, stating their own copy was also lost. This motion was denied on the ground that Atty. Soller was still the counsel of record and there was no showing of proper substitution. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals deeming his motion for reconsideration withdrawn and to command the said court to reconstitute the records and resolve the motion on the merits.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deeming the motion for reconsideration withdrawn based on the alleged failure to comply with a resolution requiring the submission of new copies of the motion. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for reconsideration of its resolution, which sought to allow the filing of a new motion for reconsideration due to the loss of records and the original motion. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that service of its resolution upon the original counsel of record was sufficient despite the appearance of new counsel and the loss of records.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The resolutions of the Court of Appeals are set aside, and the said court is ordered to allow the petitioner to file a new motion for reconsideration, which should be acted upon on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of deeming the motion for reconsideration withdrawn: The Supreme Court held that a mere annotation indicating that a resolution was sent by registered mail is not sufficient proof of actual receipt by the counsel. The Court cited its ruling in Hernandez vs. Navarro that sending mail does not equate to receipt. Therefore, the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the resolution was duly served and that non-compliance led to the withdrawal of the motion was not sufficiently substantiated. On the issue of denying the motion for reconsideration of the withdrawal resolution: The Supreme Court found the Court of Appeals' posture to be overly technical and lacking in realistic and practical considerations. It noted that the fate of the petitioner was made to depend on technical omissions of his lawyers. The Court emphasized that it would have been fairer to grant the motion of Attys. De Grano and Tobia, which sought an opportunity to reconstruct their motion for reconsideration, especially given the circumstances of the lost records. The Court also pointed out that the Court of Appeals had previously recognized the appearance of Attys. De Grano and Tobia by acting on their motion, making the subsequent denial on technical grounds inconsistent. On the issue of service of resolutions and substitution of counsel: The Supreme Court reiterated that the Court of Appeals had already recognized the appearance of Attys. De Grano and Tobia when it required the Solicitor General to comment on their motion for reconsideration. To later deny further hearing on the technical ground of improper substitution of counsel, considering all the extant circumstances including the loss of the rollo, was deemed unfair. The Court found no perceivable prejudice that could have been caused by granting the motion of Attys. De Grano and Tobia to file a new motion for reconsideration. The Court also warned the lawyers involved regarding their conduct.
Main Doctrine
A mere annotation that a resolution was sent by registered mail is insufficient proof of actual receipt by counsel. Furthermore, when the Court of Appeals had already recognized the appearance of new counsel and acted on their motion, it is unfair to later deny further hearing on the technical ground of improper substitution of counsel, especially when the loss of records prevents a clear determination of the circumstances.