Case Summary (G.R. No. 167420)
Petitioner and Respondent Allegations
Respondent Lucila C. Ylagan filed a complaint alleging that Yalong knowingly issued a postdated check for P450,000.00 that was dishonored for the reason “Account Closed,” thereby violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22). The complaint alleged that the dishonor occurred when the check was presented for payment and that demands to make good the check were unsuccessful.
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
Alleged loan and issuance: April 2, 2002 (check dated May 3, 2002). Dishonor reported: August 27, 2002. MTCC decision finding guilt: August 24, 2006 (promulgation in absentia noted as October 6, 2006). Supplemental motions and orders: October–December 2006. Notice of appeal filed January 2, 2007 (denied January 19, 2007). Petition for relief dismissed July 25, 2007; motion for reconsideration denied October 25, 2007. Petition for certiorari to RTC filed and denied by RTC Resolution dated April 2, 2008 (motion for reconsideration denied May 27, 2008). Petition for review to the Court of Appeals filed June 26, 2008; CA Resolutions dismissing the petition dated August 1, 2008 and denying reconsideration March 10, 2009. Supreme Court decision rendered August 28, 2013.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Constitutional framework: 1987 Constitution (applicable because the decision date is after 1990). Statutory and procedural law applied: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (penalizing issuance of checks without sufficient funds or credit) and the Rules of Court, specifically Section 2(a), Rule 41 (modes of appeal to the Court of Appeals) and Section 2, Rule 50 (dismissal of improper appeal). Relevant jurisprudence cited in the decision includes Ruiz v. People, China Banking Corporation v. Cebu Printing and Packaging Corporation, Heirs of Gaudiano v. Benemerito, and Rigor v. People.
Factual Background at Trial
Ylagan testified that she lent Yalong P450,000.00 with a verbal agreement for cash repayment and received a postdated check dated May 3, 2002 for that amount. When Ylagan presented the check for payment on August 27, 2002, the check was dishonored with the reason “Account Closed.” Ylagan made verbal and written demands to Yalong which allegedly proved futile, prompting filing of the criminal prosecution.
Defense at Trial
Yalong contended that she had already paid the loan (without producing a receipt or acknowledgment) and alternatively claimed that the subject check belonged to her husband and had been signed by him before she handed it to Ylagan. She also indicated awareness that the check lacked sufficient funds.
MTCC Judgment and Findings
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found Yalong guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating BP 22 and sentenced her to one year imprisonment, ordered payment of P450,000.00 with 12% legal interest from October 10, 2002, and awarded P25,000.00 for attorney’s fees and costs. The MTCC concluded that the elements of the offense were established, rejected Yalong’s claim that she did not own the account or issue the check, and relied on jurisprudence holding that BP 22 covers issuance of a check where the issuer has no account or the account was closed when the check was presented.
Post‑Judgment Motions and MTCC Actions
Yalong filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration and to recall the warrant of arrest (treated as original motion for reconsideration), which the MTCC denied. A subsequent Notice of Appeal was denied as the MTCC judgment was promulgated in absentia due to Yalong’s unjustified absence. A petition for relief from order and denial of appeal was dismissed on grounds that Yalong had lost available remedies by failing to appear at promulgation, failing to surrender, failing to seek leave to avail remedies, and remaining at large. Her motion for reconsideration of that dismissal was likewise denied.
RTC Proceedings on Certiorari
Yalong elevated the matter by filing a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC denied the certiorari petition, holding that the MTCC promulgation in absentia was valid because Yalong had been duly notified of the scheduled promulgation and failed to appear, and that she did not surrender within the time allowed, thereby forfeiting remedies. The RTC denied reconsideration as well.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Rulings
Yalong filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed the petition for review on the ground that the RTC acted in its original jurisdiction in resolving the certiorari petition, and that the proper remedy for an RTC decision rendered in original jurisdiction is an appeal by notice of appeal filed with the RTC under Section 2(a), Rule 41, not a petition for review to the Court of Appeals. A motion for reconsideration of the CA dismissal was likewise denied.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Presented for resolution was whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Yalong’s petition for review on the ground that it was an improper mode of appeal (i.e., filing a petition for review with the CA instead of a notice of appeal with the RTC).
Supreme Court Analysis on Mode of Appeal
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. It reasoned that Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court requires that appeals to the Court of Appeals from cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC; a petition for certiorari is an original action, and the RTC therefore decided the certiorari petition in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Consequently, Yalong should have filed a notice of appeal with the RTC within the reglementary period; instead she filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which is the wrong remedy. The Court rejected Yalong’s argument that the petition for review could be t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 167420)
Case Citation and Court
- Decision published at 716 Phil. 657, Second Division, G.R. No. 187174, dated August 28, 2013.
- Decision authored by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, with concurrence by Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ.; Justice Peralta designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1525 dated August 22, 2013 (noted in source as designation of another justice).
Parties and Docket References
- Petitioner: Fely Y. Yalong (hereinafter "Yalong").
- Respondents: People of the Philippines and Lucila C. Ylagan (hereinafter "Ylagan").
- Relevant docket and document references appear throughout the record (e.g., Rollo citations for various pleadings and resolutions are indicated in the source, including Rollo, pp. 14–45; 48–50; 110–150; etc.).
Factual Background
- A complaint was filed by Lucila C. Ylagan leading to the filing of an Information in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Batangas City, Branch 1 (MTCC), docketed as Criminal Case No. 45414, charging Yalong with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22).
- The Information alleged, inter alia:
- On or about April 2, 2002 in Batangas City, petitioner, knowing she did not have funds or credit with Export and Industry Bank, Juan Luna Branch, willfully drew, made and issued Check No. 0002578833 dated May 3, 2002 in the amount of P450,000.00 to Lucila Ylagan to apply on account or for value.
- When presented for payment, the check was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason "Account Closed."
- Notice of dishonor and demands to make good the check were allegedly ignored by petitioner, causing damage and prejudice to Ylagan in the amount stated. (Source: Information quoted in the record.)
- During trial:
- Ylagan testified that Yalong borrowed P450,000.00 on April 2, 2002 with a verbal agreement to repay in cash and, as payment, issued a postdated check dated May 3, 2002 for P450,000.00 (the subject check).
- Ylagan presented the check for payment on August 27, 2002; it was dishonored and returned with the notation "Account Closed."
- Verbal and written demands to pay the loan allegedly proved futile, prompting the criminal case.
- Yalong's defense:
- She contended she had already paid the loan but did not require a receipt or acknowledgment from Ylagan.
- She claimed the subject check belonged to her husband and that it had been signed by her husband before she handed it to Ylagan.
- She also admitted knowledge that the checking account was not covered by sufficient funds (per the defense as stated in the record).
MTCC Proceedings, Findings and Sentence
- The MTCC rendered judgment on August 24, 2006, finding Yalong guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating BP 22.
- Sentencing and monetary awards ordered by the MTCC:
- Imprisonment for one year.
- Payment to Ylagan of P450,000.00 with legal interest at 12% per annum from October 10, 2002.
- Payment of P25,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs of suit.
- MTCC reasoning and evidentiary findings:
- The MTCC found all elements of BP 22 established.
- It did not credit Yalong's defense that she did not own the checking account or did not issue the check.
- The MTCC cited Ruiz v. People (G.R. No. 160893, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 476) for the principle that BP 22 covers making and issuing of a check by one who has no account with a bank or where the account was already closed when the check was presented for payment.
- The MTCC found Yalong failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the loan had been fully paid.
MTCC Post-Judgment Motions and Orders
- Yalong filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and Recall of the Warrant of Arrest dated October 15, 2006; the MTCC treated it as an original motion for reconsideration.
- The MTCC denied that motion in an Order dated December 5, 2006.
- Yalong filed a Notice of Appeal dated January 2, 2007; the MTCC denied it due course in an Order dated January 19, 2007 on the basis that the judgment was promulgated in absentia due to her unjustified absence.
- Yalong filed a Petition for Relief from Order and Denial of Appeal which was dismissed in an Order dated July 25, 2007 on grounds that Yalong had lost available remedies under the law because she:
- (a) failed to appear without justifiable reason at the scheduled promulgation of the MTCC Decision;
- (b) did not surrender within 15 days from promulgation;
- (c) did not file a motion for leave of court to avail of remedies under the law; and
- (d) remained at large.
- A subsequent motion for reconsideration by Yalong was denied in an Order dated October 25, 2007.
RTC Proceedings (Certiorari Petition)
- Yalong filed a Petition for Certiorari with Petition for Bail (docketed as Civil Case No. 8278) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 7.
- The RTC issued a Resolution dated April 2, 2008 denying Yalong's certiorari petition (RTC Resolution).
- RTC rationale:
- The RTC found its promulgation of the MTCC Decision in absentia to be valid because Yalong was duly notified of the scheduled promulgation date of October 6, 2006 and failed to appear.
- The RTC observed Yalong did not make any effort to surrender within the time allowed by rules and thus lost the remedies available to her.
- Yalong filed a motion for reconsideration on April 30, 2008