Ang v. Grageda
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On February 9, 1996, Janet Ang underwent liposuction surgery on her thighs at the EPG Cosmetic and Aesthetics Surgery Clinic in Alabang, Muntinlupa City, performed by the clinic's owner, Dr. Erniefel Grageda. During the operation, Janet Ang experienced seizures, which ultimately led to her death. The National Bureau of Investigation's medico-legal experts determined the cause of death as "irreversible shock." Subsequently, Janet Ang's father, Ang Ho Chem, filed a criminal complaint against Dr. Grageda. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa then filed an Information charging Dr. Grageda with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. 2. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Muntinlupa City, after trial, acquitted Dr. Grageda on March 4, 2002, finding that he complied with the minimum standards of medical practice and that the surgery was not the proximate cause of death. The private complainant appealed the civil aspect of the decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City. Despite numerous extensions, the appellant failed to file the required appeal memorandum. Consequently, the RTC dismissed the appeal on December 2, 2002, and later denied the motion for reconsideration on January 20, 2003. The appellant's counsel then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the RTC's dismissal orders. The CA dismissed this petition, ruling that certiorari was the improper remedy and that a petition for review under Rule 42 was the appropriate recourse. The CA subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Elsie Ang, substituted for her deceased father, filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing her petition for certiorari, contending that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal and that there was no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Alternatively, petitioner asserts that even if certiorari was not the proper remedy, the substantial merits of the appeal warrant a review, citing alleged errors in the trial court's decision regarding the nature of liposuction, Dr. Grageda's qualifications, and his management of the patient's critical condition. Petitioner also claims the trial court's decision merely reproduced the respondent's memorandum and disregarded expert testimonies and evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appeal memorandum, and whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was the proper remedy before the Court of Appeals (CA) to question the RTC's dismissal orders. Whether, even if the procedural issues were overcome, the appeal should be given due course on its merits, notwithstanding procedural lapses, specifically regarding the factual findings of the lower court.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari. The dismissal of the appeal by the RTC was a final order, and the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, not a petition for certiorari. Petitioner failed to file the petition for review within the reglementary period, rendering the RTC's dismissal order final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy and the dismissal of the appeal: The Court held that the RTC's Order dated December 2, 2002, dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to file the appeal memorandum despite numerous extensions, was a final order. As such, the proper remedy to assail this order before the Court of Appeals was a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court emphasized that perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the decision final and executory. Petitioner received the dismissal order on December 16, 2002, and the denial of her motion for reconsideration on February 7, 2003. The reglementary period to file a petition for review under Rule 42 would have extended up to February 24, 2003. However, petitioner failed to file the petition for review within this period, thus losing her right to appeal. The Court reiterated that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. The RTC did not err in dismissing the appeal, as failure to file an appeal memorandum within the prescribed period is a ground for dismissal under Section 7, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The extensive period granted for extensions, totaling over 200 days, and the repeated assurances that the memorandum was in its "final stages" without actual filing, justified the dismissal. The Court noted that the dismissal was attributable to the negligence of petitioner's counsel, who failed to ascertain the status of his motions for extension and allowed the reglementary period to lapse. On the merits of the appeal (hypothetically considered): Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the petition for certiorari was the proper remedy, the Court stated that it is not a trier of facts. The factual findings of the lower court, specifically that the respondent was not negligent and that the liposuction surgery was not the proximate cause of death, would stand. These findings defeat any claim for civil liability arising from the offense. The Court cited Caiña v. People to explain that if the act from which civil liability might arise does not exist, civil liability is extinguished, even if the acquittal was based on reasonable doubt. Therefore, even if the procedural issues were overcome, the substantive claim for damages would still fail based on the established facts.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Failure to file an appeal memorandum within the reglementary period, even with successive motions for extension, can lead to the dismissal of the appeal, and the remedy from such dismissal is a petition for review under Rule 42, not certiorari.