Title
Amatorio vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 150453
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2003
Rafael Amatorio, convicted of homicide, appealed to CA. Counsel's death delayed proceedings; CA denied extension, ruling decision final. SC upheld CA, citing no extensions allowed, law firm's duty, and client's negligence. Petition denied.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 234040)

Case Background

Rafael Amatorio was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court in Iloilo City under Criminal Case No. 35460. He was found guilty of homicide by the Regional Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment ranging from ten years to seventeen years and four months. The court ordered him to pay damages to the deceased's family, leading to Amatorio's subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Development of Appeals

On April 18, 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s decision, with minor alterations regarding sentencing. The Barrera Law Office received the decision on May 7, 2001, which granted Amatorio until May 22, 2001, to file a motion for reconsideration. However, Amatorio contended that he was unaware of the decision or Atty. Barrera's death until August 9, 2001, resulting in his inability to file an appeal on time.

Filing for Extension

On August 17, 2001, new counsel Atty. Gerald C. Jacob filed a motion requesting a 30-day extension to prepare a motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied this motion, citing the prohibition against extensions for motions for reconsideration as stipulated by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Legal Issues

The petition filed to the Supreme Court was characterized as a Certiorari petition under Rule 65, which petitioner later attempted to recategorize as an appeal under Rule 45. The distinction between these remedies was critical because an erroneous appeal can lead to the dismissal of a case, and the issue at hand concerned whether a motion for extension to file a reconsideration could be entertained under the presented circumstances.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner argued that Atty. Barrera's death terminated the attorney-client relationship and that service on the deceased counsel should not bind him. Conversely, the Solicitor General contended that the continued representation by Barrera's law firm meant that Amatorio was still within the bounds of legal representation, and thus, the notice of the decision was effectively serviced to him.

Judicial Findings

The Supreme Court held that the applicable rules (Rules 40 and 41) for appeals pertain to lower courts and not to the appellate court proceedings, at which time the Court of Appeals correctly denied the motion for extension based on its internal rules. The law does not permit extensions for filing motions for reconsideration in appellate cases, aligning

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.