Case Digest (G.R. No. 205952)
Facts:
Atty. Segundo B. Bonsubre, Jr. v. Erwin Yerro, Erico Yerro and Ritchie Yerro, G.R. No. 205952, February 11, 2015, the Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Atty. Segundo B. Bonsubre, Jr. (petitioner) filed a criminal complaint for estafa against respondents Erwin Yerro, Erico Yerro, and Ritchie Yerro (respondents) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, docketed as Crim. Case No. CBU-51009. The private prosecutor of record during early stages was Atty. Norberto Luna, Jr., who manifested at a hearing that there was an ongoing settlement and that the prosecution would file the necessary motion; the court, by Order dated September 12, 2000, gave the prosecution ten days to submit that motion and to furnish the accuseds' counsel a copy for comment.
Although the parties executed a Compromise Agreement addressing the civil aspect, the prosecution did not file the promised motion or furnish the agreement to the RTC. On September 18, 2001, the RTC dismissed the criminal case for failure to prosecute, invoking the accuseds' constitutional right to a speedy trial (the September 18, 2001 Dismissal Order). Petitioner later retained new counsel, Atty. Bernarditto M. Malabago, and filed a motion for reconsideration on June 15, 2004, asserting belated discovery of the dismissal and a good-faith belief that the case had been archived per the Compromise Agreement. The RTC denied reconsideration in an Order dated April 4, 2005, ruling the dismissal final and executory but noting petitioner could pursue an independent civil action to collect on the compromise.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal; in an Order dated August 3, 2005 the RTC denied due course to the appeal insofar as the criminal aspect was concerned (holding the dismissal adjudicated the merits by reason of denial of speedy trial) but gave due course as to the civil aspect, conditioning perfection on payment of docket fees. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC, principally arguing respondents were estopped from invoking the speedy-trial rule because the parties had agreed to a provisional dismissal under the Compromise Agreement.
In a Decision dated November 24, 2011, authored by Acting Executive Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, the CA dismissed the certiorari petition and held that the September 18, 2001 dismissal had long become final and that the lapse of two years and nine months justified denying due course to the belated appeal; the CA also found petitioner (a lawyer) negligent in failing to comply with the court direction to file the motion and that certiorari was not a substitut...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding the RTC's Order denying due course to petitioner’s notice of appeal insofar as the criminal aspect of the case is concerned?
- Was the September 18, 2001 dismissal — grounded on denial of the accuseds' right to speedy trial — a final, unappealable order (an acquittal), and, if so, could petitioner properly obtain relief by certiorari absent proof of grave abuse of discretion amounti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)