View full case

JOSE “PEPE” SANICO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The petitioner, Jose Sanico, was criminally charged for trespassing and theft of minerals in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Catmon-Carmen-Sogod, Cebu. The MCTC rendered a judgment convicting Sanico and sentencing him to imprisonment and fine, as well as ordering the confiscation of a truck used in the crime. The MCTC also ordered Sanico to pay actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses to the private complainant, Jennifer Tenio. Sanico filed a notice of appeal in the MCTC, but he failed to submit a memorandum on appeal as ordered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). As a result, the RTC dismissed his appeal with prejudice. Sanico filed a motion for reconsideration, stating that he did not submit the memorandum on appeal due to personal problems and the illness of his wife. However, the RTC denied the motion, and Sanico subsequently filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition for multiple procedural deficiencies and denied Sanico's motion for reconsideration. The RTC issued an entry of judgment and writ of execution, leading to the sale of Sanico's personal properties to satisfy the judgment. Sanico filed an appeal by petition for review on certiorari to question the CA's rulings and seek the review of the legal infirmities committed by the MCTC. Tenio argued that the appeal is not the proper avenue to evaluate the lower courts' findings, and Sanico had already lost his opportunities to contest the decision and orders.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for failure to comply with procedural requirements.

  2. Whether the Regional Trial Court misapplied the Rules of Court in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for failure to file a memorandum on appeal.

  3. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal was a denial of due process.

  4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in limiting its attention to the defects of the petitioner's petition for review.

  5. Whether the negligence of the petitioner's counsel should be binding on the petitioner.

RULING:

  1. The appeal is meritorious. The Court held that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for failure to file a memorandum on appeal, as it misapplied the Rules of Court. The RTC relied on Section 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, which authorizes the dismissal of an appeal when the appellant fails to file a memorandum on appeal. However, the relevant rule for criminal cases is Section 9(c) of Rule 122, which requires the RTC to decide the appeal "on the basis of the entire record of the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed" upon the submission or expiration of the period to file the same. Therefore, the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal cannot be properly premised on the failure to file a memorandum on appeal.

  2. The dismissal of the petitioner's appeal was a denial of due process because he timely perfected his appeal by filing a notice of appeal in the trial court. The dismissal by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the appeal was an outright denial of due process, as it failed to resolve the appeal in due course.

  3. The Court of Appeals erred in limiting its attention to the defects of the petitioner's petition for review. It should have recognized that the appeal before it was premature since the appeal before the RTC had not yet been completed. Insisting on acting on the premature petition for review would be unjust to the petitioner.

  4. The negligence of the petitioner's counsel is not binding on the petitioner. The incompetence of counsel in the preparation of the petition for review was gross negligence. If the client is prejudiced by this negligence, the litigation should be re-opened to give the client another chance to present his case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Dismissal of an appeal for failure to comply with procedural requirements applies only to civil cases, not criminal cases.

  • In criminal cases, the RTC is required to decide the appeal on the basis of the entire record of the case and any memoranda or briefs that have been filed.

  • The dismissal of an appeal without resolving it is a denial of due process.

  • The Court of Appeals must not limit its attention to procedural defects and should consider the substance of the appeal.

  • The negligence of counsel does not bind the client, and if the client is prejudiced by the negligence, the litigation should be re-opened.