G.R. No. 96776 - Retoni, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Pablo Retoni, Jr. and two co-accused were charged with Serious Physical Injuries in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Dasmarinas, Cavite.
Complainant Teotimo Rodriguez suffered a nasal bone fracture from being boxed by the accused, with the injury requiring a minimum of thirty (30) days to heal.

On February 1, 1990, respondent MTC Judge Arthur A. Famini convicted petitioner Retoni, Jr. along with his co-accused, Ricardo and Rogelio Mandini.
Only petitioner Retoni, Jr. subsequently appealed his conviction.

The appeal was assigned in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite, under respondent RTC Judge Luis R. Reyes.
After all required pleadings were submitted, Judge Reyes rendered the decision on May 21, 1990, which was promulgated on June 14, 1990.
No motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed within fifteen (15) days, rendering the RTC decision final and executory on July 6, 1990.

Petitioner’s counsel, contending that he only received a copy of the RTC decision on July 9, 1990 (due to his absence from the country from June 9, 1990, to July 6, 1990), filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated July 17, 1990, which was submitted on July 20, 1990.
Following this, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the appeal period should be computed from the date his counsel personally received the decision.

It was noted that service of the decision upon the counsel’s office, and not necessarily upon the counsel personally, is valid and triggers the appellate timeline.
The Court of Appeals held that regardless of the alleged receipt by counsel on July 9, 1990, the appeal period properly began when the office received the decision, leading to the filing being outside the fifteen (15) day reglementary period.

Whether the petition for review was filed beyond the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days from the promulgation or notice of the RTC decision.

Whether there was a valid issue on the ground of conspiracy among petitioner Retoni, Jr. and his co-accused in relation to the commission of the offense.