Case Summary (G.R. No. 198753)
Factual and Procedural Background
Jose a Pepe a Sanico and Marsito Batiquin were criminally charged with trespassing and theft of minerals before the MCTC. The court convicted both for the violation of Section 103 of RA No. 7942 and imposed imprisonment terms, fines, and ordered confiscation of a truck used in the commission of the offense. The court also ordered the accused to pay significant actual, moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses to private complainant Jennifer S. Tenio. For trespassing charges, however, they were acquitted due to insufficient proof. Sanico timely filed a notice of appeal.
RTC Dismissal of Appeal Based on Non-filing of Memorandum
The RTC ordered Sanico to file a memorandum on appeal but dismissed the appeal with prejudice when he failed to comply. The dismissal was grounded solely on Section 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, which permits dismissal for failure to file a memorandum in civil appeals. Sanico’s motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of verification and justification. Sanico then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, challenging both his conviction and the dismissal of his appeal by the RTC.
Court of Appeals’ Denial of Petition for Review
The Court of Appeals dismissed Sanico’s petition for review due to multiple procedural infirmities: non-payment of docket fees, absence of proper proof of service and notice to adverse parties, failure to attach material records and pleadings, defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and defective notarization details. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration citing the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of docket fee payment and procedural compliance. It further ruled that a client is generally bound by his counsel’s procedural lapses unless gross and inexcusable negligence deprives him of his day in court. The CA also declined to nullify the RTC’s entry of judgment or remand the case for review.
Supreme Court’s Ruling: Misapplication of Rules by the RTC
The Supreme Court found merit in Sanico’s appeal, ruling that the RTC gravely erred by applying Section 7, Rule 40—a provision exclusive to civil cases—when dismissing the criminal appeal for failure to file a memorandum on appeal. The proper rule governing criminal appeals, Rule 122, explicitly states that filing a memorandum is optional and the RTC must decide appeals based on the entire record and any memoranda submitted. Thus, dismissal for failure to file a memorandum was unwarranted. The RTC’s dismissal was therefore a denial of due process and deprived Sanico of the right to have his conviction reviewed on appeal, causing prejudice especially as the entry of judgment had been enforced.
Prematurity and Procedural Defects in the CA Petition for Review
The Court noted that the petition for review to the CA was premature because the appeal before the RTC had not been decided. Although docket fee payment and other procedural requirements were mandatory, the CA should have recognized the improperly dismissed appeal below and the consequent invalidity of the CA petition’s dismissal as prejudicial to Sanico. The Court acknowledged the gross negligence of Sanico’s counsel in filing the petition but emphasized that the client should not be penalized for competent counsel’s failures when it results in denial of his right to a review.
Remedial Measures and Orders
The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the RTC’s dismissal orders, the CA’s resolutions dismissing the petition for review, and the RTC’s issuance of the entry of judgment and its executory effects. The Court quashed and vacated the entry of judgment, nullified all acts arising from it (including execution sales and certificates of sale), and remanded the case to the RTC. The RTC was ordered to review the criminal conviction on appeal as if the appeal had been properly filed and decided on time. The private respondent Jennifer S. Tenio was directed to pay the costs of suit. The Court underscored the critical need for lower courts to vigilantly observe procedural rules to safeguard the right to appeal, an indispensable aspect of due process.
Legal Principles Applied
- The right to appeal in criminal cases under Rule 122 is integral and must be respected; the filing of a memorandum on appeal is optional, not mandatory.
- Section 7, Rule 40’s dismissal provision for failu
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 198753)
Case Background and Procedural History
- The petitioner, Jose aPepea Sanico, and Marsito Batiquin were criminally charged for trespassing and theft of minerals before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Catmon-Carmen-Sogod, Cebu.
- On April 2, 2009, the MCTC convicted Sanico and Batiquin for violation of Section 103 of Republic Act No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995), sentencing them to imprisonment and fines, ordering confiscation of a truck, and imposing solidary damages to the private complainant, Jennifer S. Tenio.
- The MCTC acquitted both accused for the trespassing charge due to insufficient evidence.
- Sanico filed a notice of appeal on April 22, 2009, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Danao City.
- The RTC ordered Sanico to file a memorandum on appeal by January 5, 2010; Sanico failed to comply.
- On March 16, 2010, the RTC dismissed Sanico’s appeal with prejudice for failure to file the required memorandum.
- Sanico filed a motion for reconsideration citing personal and counsel’s medical difficulties; the RTC denied it on June 1, 2010, citing lack of verification and justifiable reasons.
- On June 23, 2010, Sanico, through a different counsel, filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging both his conviction and the dismissal of his appeal.
- The CA dismissed this petition on April 14, 2011, citing multiple procedural defects, including non-payment of docket fees and defective verifications.
- Sanico’s motion for reconsideration to the CA was denied on September 15, 2011.
- Meanwhile, the RTC issued an entry of judgment on March 30, 2011, and a writ of execution on April 19, 2011, resulting in the sale of Sanico’s properties.
- Sanico’s subsequent motions to recall the entry of judgment and quash the execution were denied by the RTC.
- Sanico elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari.
Issues Presented
- Whether the RTC erred in dismissing Sanico’s appeal for failure to file a memorandum on appeal despite rules permitting optional submission.
- Whether the CA erred in upholding the dismissal of the petition for review based on procedural infirmities without addressing the RTC’s faulty dismissal of the appeal.
- Whether the execution of judgment and subsequent sales of the petitioner’s properties were premature and illegal given the pendency of an appeal.
- Whether the negligence of the petitioner’s counsel should be imputed to the petitioner, barring relief.
- Whether the RTC should have remanded the case for review of damages awarded to Jennifer S. Tenio instead of allowing judgment to become final without appellate scrutiny.
Facts on the Appeal Procedures and Applicable Rules
- Section 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court app