Case Summary (G.R. No. 84857)
Factual Background
• On April 2, 2002, Yalong borrowed ₱450,000 from Ylagan under a verbal agreement to repay in cash.
• Yalong issued a postdated check (No. 0002578833, May 3, 2002) in that amount.
• When Ylagan presented the check on August 27, 2002 at LBC Bank in Batangas City, it was dishonored for “Account Closed.”
• Ylagan’s verbal and written demands for payment went unheeded, prompting her to file criminal charges under BP 22.
MTCC Proceedings and Judgment
• Yalong pleaded not guilty; she claimed full repayment without receipt and that the check was her husband’s.
• August 24, 2006: MTCC convicted Yalong beyond reasonable doubt for issuing a check without funds, citing Ruiz v. People on account-closed dishonors.
• Sentence: one year imprisonment; civil liability of ₱450,000 plus 12% interest from October 10, 2002; ₱25,000 attorney’s fees and costs.
Post-Judgment Remedies at MTCC
• Supplemental motion for reconsideration and recall of arrest warrant (Oct 15, 2006) denied (Dec 5, 2006).
• Notice of Appeal (Jan 2, 2007) denied for in absentia promulgation (Jan 19, 2007).
• Petition for Relief from Denial of Appeal dismissed (July 25, 2007); reconsideration denied (Oct 25, 2007).
RTC Certiorari Petition
• Yalong sought certiorari relief in RTC Batangas City, Branch 7 (Civ. Case No. 8278).
• April 2, 2008: RTC denied the petition, validating the in absentia promulgation and noting Yalong’s failure to surrender.
• Motion for reconsideration denied (May 27, 2008).
CA Petition for Review and Dismissal
• June 26, 2008: Yalong filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 104075).
• CA Resolutions (Aug 1, 2008; Mar 10, 2009): dismissed the petition as improper mode of appeal, holding that appeals from RTC’s original-jurisdiction rulings require a Notice of Appeal to the RTC, not a petition for review to the CA.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Holding
Modes of Appeal
• Section 2(a), Rule 41: appeals from RTC decisions in original jurisdiction “shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment.”
• Distinction: Notice of Appeal (RTC original jurisdiction) vs. Petition for Review (CA appellat
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 84857)
Procedural Posture
- Petitioner Fely Y. Yalong challenged the dismissal of her petition for review by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104075.
- The CA issued two resolutions (August 1, 2008 and March 10, 2009) dismissing the petition for review on the ground of improper mode of appeal.
- Yalong elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.
Facts
- On April 2, 2002, in Batangas City, Yalong drew and issued Export and Industry Bank Check No. 0002578833 dated May 3, 2002, for ₱450,000.00, knowing that she had no funds or credit with the bank (account closed).
- Yalong delivered the check to Major Lucila C. Ylagan as payment for a verbal loan of ₱450,000.00.
- When Ylagan presented the post-dated check for payment on August 27, 2002, it was dishonored for “Account Closed.”
- Despite verbal and written demands for payment, Yalong failed or refused to make good on her obligation.
MTCC Proceedings and Ruling
- Criminal Case No. 45414 was filed in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Batangas City, Branch 1, charging Yalong with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22).
- At arraignment, Yalong pleaded not guilty; trial ensued.
- Ylagan testified to the existence of the loan, issuance of the check, dishonor, and futile demands for payment.
- Yalong’s defense: she had already paid the loan (without receipt), the check belonged to her husband, and she merely delivered an already signed check.
- On August 24, 2006, the MTCC convicted Yalong, sentencing her to one year imprisonment and ordering her to pay ₱450,000.00 with 12% interest from October 10, 2002, plus ₱25,000.00 attorney’s fees and costs.
- The court found all elements of BP 22 proven, rejected her defenses, and