G.R. No. 212136 - KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. Tiongco

The case originated from an Information filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City on October 23, 2006.
The accused––petitioner Ma. Corazon M. Ola, Manuel Hurtada, and Aida Ricarse––were charged with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Information alleged that on or about September 27, 2006, the accused, by means of false pretenses and fraudulent representations, induced the complainant, Elizabeth T. Lauzon, to pay P420,000 by falsely asserting their authority to sell, dispose, or encumber a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-19987.
The fraud was compounded by the fact that the true registered owner of the property was Marita F. Sanlay and that the land was already encumbered by financial institutions.

After trial, the RTC found petitioner and her co-accused guilty of swindling under Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code.
The RTC sentenced all accused to six (6) months imprisonment, ordered them to indemnify the complainant in the amount of P320,000 (joint and several liability), imposed a fine of P1,000,000, and directed payment of court costs.

Petitioners, along with their co-accused, appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Briefs for Accused-Appellants were filed as follows:

On May 28, 2010, a Manifestation with Leave of Court was submitted, requesting a 20-day period to file an appropriate pleading.
On June 29, 2010, a Motion for Leave of Court to File an Amended Appellant’s Brief was filed.

First Resolution (September 9, 2010): Denied petitioner’s motion on the ground that it was filed out of time.
Second Resolution (December 14, 2010): Denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner.
Third Resolution (February 14, 2011): Again denied the petitioner’s motion (treated as a second motion for reconsideration), reiterating that the motion was improperly timed.

Petitioner raised the issue before the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The petition challenged the CA’s resolutions on several grounds:

That the CA, by adopting the stance of the Office of the Solicitor General, overlooked the evidence and violated the petitioner’s due process rights as affirmed in Ang Tibay v. CIR.
That the petitioner’s motion constituted a second motion for reconsideration.
That the governing law concerning amendment of pleadings should be Rule 10 rather than Sections 6, 4 of Rule 124, or related provisions of Rules 6 and 11.
That the liberal amendment rule should apply, permitting the petitioner to amend her appeal brief despite the delay.

Whether the CA’s resolutions denying the petitioner’s motion to amend her appeal brief constitute final orders subject to appeal on certiorari or are merely interlocutory orders that do not dispose of the case in its entirety.

Whether petitioner’s motion for amendment, filed 79 days late, meets or violates the procedural requirements prescribed by the Rules of Court.

Whether the petitioner’s reliance on Rule 10 (governing amendments in pleadings) is appropriate as opposed to relying on Sections 6, Rule 124, or other related provisions, and whether these rules should be liberally interpreted in her favor.

Whether the petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the CA’s failure to clearly articulate the reasons and issues involved in their resolutions, given the constitutional requirement to state the facts and law basis in decisions.

Whether the correct remedy for challenging the denial of the motion to amend the appeal brief is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 (for final orders) or a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (for interlocutory orders).