41 Muñoz v.

People (RINGIA) informing him of the dishonor of the RCBC check and demanding
Mar. 14, 2008 | J. Austria-Martinez | Period to File (R.42, S. 1) that he make good the check or pay the amount thereof within five
days from receipt of said notice. The letter was received on the same
PETITIONER: Merliza Muñoz day by Eden Barnedo at the postal address "L.P. Muñoz, Jr. [sic]
RESPONDENTS: People of the Philippines Construction, Fernando Avenue, Doña Maria Subd., Daraga,
Albay."
SUMMARY: Petitioner’s husband obtained a loan worth 500k from Sunwest b. After a month, Sunwest sent by registered mail another letter, this
Corporation. Petitioner issued a check for the loan. This check was dishonored for time addressed to petitioner, informing her of the dishonor of the
insufficiency of funds. Petitioner was found guilty of BP 22 in the MTCC. RTC RCBC check and demanding that she pay the said check within five
affirmed the decision. On appeal, she failed to serve copy of her petition on the days from receipt of the letter. The letter was received on March 20,
Solicitor General as counsel of the adverse party, the People of the Philippines. 2001 by Eden Barnedo at the postal address, "Fernando Avenue,
She served a copy to the Assistant City Prosecutor but the latter was no longer the Doña Maria Subd., Daraga, Albay".
counsel nor was deputized by the OSG when the case was already in the CA. 5. Petitioner’s defense: Sunwest and Muñoz Construction had mutual claims
Petitioner also failed to attach the Affidavit of Service. Therefore, CA dismissed against each other: Muñoz Construction had a claim against Sunwest for
the appeal outright. Petitioner questioned the dismissal of the CA based on purely P10,000,000.00, including a 15% advance payment, for two river control
technical grounds. projects, while Sunwest had a claim against Muñoz Construction for
P500,000.00. Given that the claim of Muñoz Construction was bigger than
DOCTRINE: that of Sunwest, petitioner treated the first claim as having automatically
offset, covered or paid the second claim as represented by the amount of the
• Rule 42, Sec. 3 provides that the failure of the petitioner to comply with
RCBC check. This explains why petitioner did "not give emphasis" anymore
any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket
to the RCBC check, the amount of which she considered as having been
and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the
already settled. Petitioner reminded Sunwest that it was made aware of the
petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany
offsetting of the amount of the RCBC check as early as February 15, 2001.
the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
6. MTCC: Petitioner is guilty of BP 22 and sentenced with a fine of
• Only a clear showing of prima facie merit of the petition will persuade
P200,000.00; to pay Sunwest P500,000.00, representing the amount of
the Court to take the extraordinary effort of setting aside its rules to give
RCBC Check, plus interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum computed
way to the imperfect petition.
from April 23, 2001, the date of the filing of the information, until fully paid;
In this case, there was no substantial ground to apply the liberal application of the
and to pay the costs.
Rules because petitioner waived her defense that Elizaldy Co had no authority to
7. RTC on appeal by Petitioner affirmed the MTCC Decision in toto.
file the complaint [because this is a ground for a motion to quash which must be
8. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CA but the latter dismissed it
raised during the preliminary investigation or before entering a plea upon
outright in the November 19, 2003 Resolution assailed herein, citing the
arraignment]. Further, petitioner, based on the records, that she admitted receiving
following grounds:
the notoce of honor. Therefore, CA was correct in dismissing the appeal outright.
a. Failure to attach or incorporate an Affidavit of Service as required
under Section 13, Rule 13 in relation to Section 3, Rule 42 of the
FACTS: 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended; and
1. Petitioner is the owner and operator of LP Muñoz Construction. She is the b. Failure to furnish copy of the petition and its annexes to the Office
wife of Ludolfo Muñoz. of the Solicitor General which is the counsel of the People of the
2. Ludolfo took a loan of P500,000.00, at 5% interest, from Sunwest Philippines.
Construction and Development Corporation. Ludolfo issued to Sunwest a 9. CA denied MR.
DBP check, postdated September 3, 2000, for P500,000.00.
3. Ludolfo sought an extension of his loan by replacing the DBP check with ISSUE: W/N CA erred in dismissing the petition on purely technical grounds - NO
RCBC Check for P500,000.00, drawn by petitioner and postdated December
3, 2000. Sunwest accepted the replacement check. RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
4. Sunwest deposited the RCBC check with the BPI Legaspi City, which
presented it to the drawee bank RCBC, but the latter dishonored the check RATIO:
for insufficiency of funds. 1. Except in criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua
a. Sunwest sent by registered mail a letter addressed to Ludolfo,
 or death, an appeal is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion. It executed by the person who sent the e-mail, facsimile, or other
may be availed of only in the manner provided by law and the rules. electronic transmission, together with a printed proof of transmittal.
2. Rule 42 prescribes the following requirements for the filing with the CA of a 4. Failure to serve copy of the petition on the adverse party or to show proof of
petition for review from a decision of the RTC: service thereof is a fatal defect, for which the petition can be dismissed under
Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. A party desiring to Section 3, Rule 42, thus:
appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court rendered in the a. Section 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements
review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the
clerk of said Court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of
depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be
Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
petition. The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) 5. In the present case, petitioner failed to serve copy of her petition on the
days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the Solicitor General as counsel of the adverse party, the People of the
denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in Philippines. Hence, the CA did not commit any reversible error in dismissing
due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and the payment of her petition.
the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit a. Petitioner did not even show substantial compliance with the
for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court requirement of service of pleading. Although she served copy of her
of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only Petition for Review on Assistant City Prosecutor Catalino C.
within which to file the petition for review. No further extension Serrano, the latter was no longer counsel of the adverse party when
shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no the case was brought to the CA, nor was he specifically deputized
case to exceed fifteen (15) days. or designated by the Solicitor General to represent him or receive
3. Clearly, therefore, the timeliness of a petition depends not only on its notices for him. Hence, service on the Assistant City Prosecutor did
seasonable filing but also on the prompt service of copy thereof on the not amount to service on the Solicitor General
adverse party and the RTC. Thus, the petition must be accompanied by proof 6. It is true that oftentimes the Court applied the rules with flexibility in order
of service as prescribed under Rule 13 [Note that the CivPro amendments on that the merits of a case will be fully adjudicated upon, notwithstanding its
proof of service is contained in R.13, S. 17 which I will quote herein:] technical imperfections. But what impels the Court to do so is neither a party's
SECTION 17. Proof of Service. — Proof of personal service shall empty invocations of liberality nor its mechanical correction of the
consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official imperfections.
return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a. Rather, only a clear showing of prima facie merit of the petition will
a statement of the date, place, and manner of service. If the service persuade the Court to take the extraordinary effort of setting aside
is made by: its rules to give way to the imperfect petition. After all, the rationale
(a) Ordinary mail. — Proof shall consist of an affidavit of the person for liberality is to bring to light the merits of the petition,
mailing stating the facts showing compliance with Section 7 of this unobstructed by mere deficiencies in its form, such that if the
Rule. petition has not an iota of merit in it, then there is nothing for the
(b) Registered mail. — Proof shall be made by the Court to bring to light at all.
affidavit mentioned above and the registry receipt issued by the 7. In the present case, while upon motion for reconsideration, petitioner
mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately supplied what were lacking in her petition for review filed with the CA, she
upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof, the unclaimed letter utterly failed to convince the Court that the substantial grounds cited therein
together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the far transcend its technical deficiencies as would justify the resolution of her
postmaster to the addressee. petition on its merits rather than form.
(c) Accredited courier service. — Proof shall be made by an 8. In this case, petitioner insists that the criminal case filed against her, as well
affidavit of service executed by the person who brought the pleading as the civil case that was deemed instituted with it, should have been
or paper to the service provider, together with the courier's official dismissed for lack of authority of Elizaldy Co to file the same on behalf of
receipt or document tracking number. Sunwest, the payee of the RCBC check
(d) Electronic mail, facsimile, or Other Authorized electronic means a. Citing Tam Wing Tak v. Makasia: it is clear that where a corporation
of transmission. — Proof shall be made by an affidavit of service is an injured party, its power to sue is lodged with its board of
 directors or trustees.
b. It bears emphasis that the deficiency in the complaint was
challenged by the accused at the preliminary investigation stage, or
before he entered a plea upon arraignment.
c. On the contrary, in the present case, petitioner questioned the
authority of Elizaldy Co after arraignment and completion of the
prosecution's presentation of evidence. Thus, she is barred from
raising such objection under Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of
Court
d. The deficiency in the complaint/information arising from the lack of
authority of Elizaldy Co was not jurisdictional. It did not detract
from the unquestioned authority of the Assistant City Prosecutor to
file the Information, nor impair the jurisdiction of the MTCC to act
on the same.
e. Second, petitioner harps on the purported lack of notice to her of the
dishonor of the RCBC check. This contention flies in the face of
documentary evidence consisting of the March 20, 2001 letter of
petitioner to Sunwest where she expressly acknowledged receiving
the March 14, 2001 notice of dishonor of the RCBC check.