Prieto v. Alpadi Development Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rhodora Prieto, an accounting clerk and cashier for Alpadi Development Corporation (ADC) and related companies, was charged with estafa. The prosecution alleged that from 1992 to 1994, Prieto collected rental payments totaling P544,858.64 from tenants but failed to remit these funds to her employer. Instead, she allegedly misappropriated the money for personal use, despite demands for its return. The prosecution presented evidence including Prieto's alleged confession, fraudulent deposit slips, an investigator's report, a computation of unremitted collections, and a tenant's affidavit indicating cash payments were made to Prieto. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 8, initially granted Prieto's Demurrer to Evidence, dismissing the estafa case. The RTC reasoned that as an employee, Prieto only had material possession of the funds, with juridical possession remaining with the employer, likening her role to that of a bank teller. The RTC subsequently denied the private complainant's motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (CA), however, granted ADC's Petition for Certiorari, finding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA annulled the RTC's orders, reinstated the criminal case, and remanded it for further proceedings, holding that Prieto possessed both material and juridical possession and that the elements of estafa were sufficiently proven. The CA denied Prieto's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Prieto filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision and reinstate the RTC's dismissal of the estafa case. She argued that she lacked juridical possession of the collected rental payments, a necessary element for estafa. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition outright. The Court found that Prieto's petition was filed out of time. Despite a prior motion for extension filed by her initial counsel, which set the deadline for appeal as January 8, 2010, her new counsel filed the petition on February 10, 2010. The Court rejected Prieto's claim that she only received notice of the CA resolution on January 26, 2010, emphasizing that notice to counsel is binding on the client and that her claims of her former counsel's negligence or deliberate acts were unsubstantiated.
Issue(s)
Whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 191025 was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting Prieto's Demurrer to Evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari for being filed out of time. The Court held that the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91714, which reversed the RTC's grant of the demurrer to evidence and reinstated the criminal case, had become immutable.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the Petition: The Court found that Prieto's Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 191025 was filed out of time. Prieto, through her counsel of record, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), received the CA Resolution denying her Motion for Reconsideration on November 24, 2009. The 15-day reglementary period to appeal would have expired on December 9, 2009. Even with the 30-day extension sought in G.R. No. 190282, the last day to file the appeal was January 8, 2010. The filing of the petition in G.R. No. 191025 on February 10, 2010, by new counsel, was therefore beyond the reglementary period. The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with law, and failure to comply with the rules leads to the loss of this right. The Court rejected Prieto's claim that the period should be counted from January 26, 2010, as notice to counsel of record is binding upon the client, and the client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of their counsel unless the negligence is so gross as to deprive the client of their day in court. Prieto failed to discharge the burden of proving exceptionally meritorious instances warranting deviation from the rules. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not to be belittled and that utter disregard of the rules cannot be rationalized by harping on the policy of liberal construction. With the withdrawal of the appeal in G.R. No. 190282 and the belated filing of the Petition in G.R. No. 191025, the CA's decision had become final and executory, immutable, and unalterable. There was no provided ratio decidendi related to whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting Prieto's Demurrer to Evidence.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court denied the petition for being filed out of time, emphasizing that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with law, and a party is bound by the acts of their counsel, even if negligent, unless such negligence is so gross as to deprive the client of their day in court. The Court also reiterated that a final and executory judgment becomes immutable and unalterable.