Ola v. People
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case originated from an Information filed on October 23, 2006, charging petitioner Ma. Corazon M. Ola, along with Manuel Hurtada and Aida Ricarse, with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge alleged that the accused, through deceit and false pretenses, defrauded Elizabeth T. Lauzon of P420,000.00 by falsely representing themselves as authorized to sell a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-19987, which they knew was not theirs to sell. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City later found the accused guilty of other forms of swindling under Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing them to imprisonment and ordering them to jointly and severally indemnify the complainant. 2. Procedural History: Following the RTC's decision, the petitioner and her co-accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The petitioner and Ricarse jointly filed their brief, and Hurtada filed his separate brief. The People of the Philippines, as appellee, filed its brief. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Manifestation with Leave of Court seeking additional time to file a pleading and later a Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Appellant's Brief. The CA, in a Resolution dated September 9, 2010, denied the motion to amend the brief as it was filed out of time. The petitioner's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied on December 14, 2010. A further motion filed by the petitioner on January 4, 2011, was also denied on February 14, 2011, as it was treated as a prohibited second motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's Resolutions dated September 9, 2010, December 14, 2010, and February 14, 2011. The grounds raised included allegations that the CA overlooked evidence, violated due process, and erred in determining whether a second motion for reconsideration was filed. The petitioner also argued about the applicable rules for amendments of pleadings and the application of liberality in such rules. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition dismissible on procedural grounds, noting that the assailed CA Resolutions were interlocutory orders and that the petitioner's resort to a Rule 45 petition was erroneous, as the proper remedy for interlocutory orders would be a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals, by adopting the stance of the Office of the Solicitor General, overlooked evidence and violated petitioner's due process. Whether the petitioner made a second motion for reconsideration; and whether the ruling in Constantino, et al. v. Hon. Reyes, et al. applies. Whether Rule 10 on amendments of pleadings, and not Section 6 of Rule 6 and Section 9 of Rule 44 in relation to Section 4 of Rule 124, should govern the case; and whether the motion to amend was timely. Whether the liberality rule for amendment of pleadings should be applied in favor of the petitioner; and on the propriety of the remedy.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. The Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to proceed with the resolution of the case on the merits with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that the assailed Resolutions of the CA, which denied petitioner's motion to amend her appellant's brief, were interlocutory orders. These resolutions did not dispose of the case completely but left something more to be decided upon, specifically the main issue of whether petitioner was guilty of estafa. Therefore, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was not the proper remedy; the appropriate remedy would have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court cited Spouses Bergonia v. Court of Appeals, et al. and Republic of the Phils., v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), et al. to distinguish between final and interlocutory orders and their respective remedies. The petition was dismissed on this ground alone for procedural infirmity. On the appealability of the CA's denial of the motion to amend: The Court clarified that the ruling in Constantino, et al. v. Hon. Reyes, et al., which petitioner relied upon, is distinguishable. In Constantino, the order denying the motion to amend a dismissed complaint was considered final and thus appealable because there was nothing else to be done by the trial court. In the present case, the CA denied the motion to amend an appellant's brief, not a complaint, and this denial did not end the CA's task of adjudicating the merits of the appeal. Therefore, the denial was interlocutory and not appealable via a Rule 45 petition. On due process and the constitutional provision on decisions: The Court found no merit in petitioner's argument that the CA Resolutions deprived her of due process for failing to state the reasons clearly. The Court reiterated that Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, requiring decisions to clearly state the facts and law, applies only to decisions on the merits and not to interlocutory orders resolving incidental matters, citing Nicos Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Mendoza v. Court of First Instance of Quezon, etc., et al.. On the timeliness of the motion to amend and the application of rules: The CA correctly ruled that petitioner's motion for leave to file an amended appellant's brief was filed seventy-nine (79) days late, making it unacceptable. Even if Rule 10 on amendments of pleadings were applied, substantial amendments after a responsive pleading requires leave of court, which can be refused if made to delay the proceedings. The CA did not err in refusing the motion due to unjustified delay. The Court emphasized that appeals are statutory rights that must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law, and rules governing appellate practice are designed to ensure the orderly administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is not the proper remedy to assail interlocutory orders of the Court of Appeals; a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the appropriate remedy. Furthermore, the denial of a motion to amend an appellant's brief, when filed out of time, is an interlocutory order and does not dispose of the case on the merits.