Facts:

The case involves petitioner Rafael Amatorio, charged with murder in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Iloilo City, under Criminal Case No. 35460. On July 18, 1997, the court found Amatorio guilty of homicide and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment as the minimum, extending up to seventeen years and four months as the maximum. Additionally, he was ordered to pay the deceased's mother, Ofelia Melocoton, funeral and burial expenses of PhP 63,200.00, PhP 50,000.00 for wrongful death, and another PhP 50,000.00 for moral damages. Amatorio, represented by Atty. Joelito T. Barrera of the Barrera Law Office, appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. Tragically, Atty. Barrera died on March 2, 2001, while the case was pending. The Court of Appeals upheld the Regional Trial Court's decision on April 18, 2001. The Barrera Law Office received this decision on May 7, 2001, granting Amatorio until May 22, 2001, to file a motion for reconsideration. Ho

...

Facts:

Criminal Case and Trial Proceedings

• Rafael Amatorio was charged with murder (convicted of homicide only) before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, 6th Judicial Region, Iloilo City, under Criminal Case No. 35460.
• After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment finding Amatorio guilty of homicide beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to imprisonment for a period ranging from ten (10) years as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as maximum.
• The judgment further ordered Amatorio to pay PhP63,200.00 for the deceased’s funeral and burial expenses as well as additional amounts (PhP50,000.00 each) for wrongful death and moral damages to the legal heirs of the deceased.

Appellate Proceedings and Counsel Issues

• Amatorio appealed the Regional Trial Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals.
• During the pendency of the appellate case, Amatorio was represented by Atty. Joelito T. Barrera of the Barrera Law Office, who died on March 2, 2001, while the case was still before the appellate court.
• Despite the death, the Court of Appeals proceeded with a review and on April 18, 2001, affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s decision with a modification on the sentencing nomenclature (using prision mayor and reclusion temporal instead of the original terms).

Notice, Motion for Reconsideration, and Petition Filing

• A copy of the Court of Appeals’ decision was received by the Barrera Law Office on May 7, 2001, which theoretically provided a period until May 22, 2001 for filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal.
• Amatorio contended that he was not informed of the decision and, due to learning about Atty. Barrera’s death only on August 9, 2001, he was unable to timely file his motion for reconsideration.
• Represented by new counsel, Atty. Gerald C. Jacob, Amatorio filed on August 17, 2001 a motion requesting a 30-day extension to file a motion for reconsideration, arguing that an extension was necessary to thoroughly study the case and prepare an intelligent motion.

Procedural Mode and Alleged Errors

• The petition filed on November 9, 2001 before the Supreme Court was originally denominated as a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court. Later, through a subsequent pleading (“Reply to Comment”), counsel alleged that the proper remedy was an appeal under Rule 45 instead.
• The petition raised two main allegations of grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals:
• Denying the motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.
• Concluding that the April 18, 2001 decision was final and executory despite the death of counsel, asserting that the attorney-client relationship was thereby extinguished.
• The Solicitor General argued that the law firm’s continuing representation of Amatorio meant that notice of the decision had been properly effected, and that the motion for extension was barred by the applicable internal rules of the Court of Appeals and established jurisprudence.

Issue:

Whether, under the circumstances, a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of a decision of the Court of Appeals is allowed.

• Does the death of the handling counsel (Atty. Barrera) affect the validity or timeliness of the filing of a motion for reconsideration?
• Is the petitioner’s change in the stated mode of appeal—from a petition filed under Rule 65 to an appeal under Rule 45—permissible and sufficient to cure the alleged procedural defect?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)