GR 254067 2021

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 01 February 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254067 (Ruth P. Vega* v. People of the Philippines). -

After a review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for
failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any
reversible en-or in its October 4, 2019 1 and September 28, 2020 2 Resolutions
in CA- G.R. CR No. 43902 as to wan-ant the exercise of this Court's appellate
jurisdiction.
The CA did not en- in denying petitioner's motion for extension of time.
In Yutingco v. Court of Appeals, 3 this Court held that the circumstance of
heavy workload alone, absent a compelling or special reason, is not sufficient
justification to allow an extension of the petition, to wit:
Heavy workload, which is relative and often self-serving, ought to

be coupled with more compelling reasons such as illness of counsel or other
emergencies that could be substantiated by affidavits of merit. Standing
alone, heavy workload is not sufficient reason to deviate from the 60-day
rule. Thus, we are constrained to state that the Court of Appeals did not err
in dismissing the petition for having been filed late. 4
Similarly in this case, petitioner's only justification in her motion for

extension of time is the heavy workload ofher counsel. Clearly, there should
be an effort on the part of the litigant invoking liberality to satisfactorily
• Also known as "Ruth G. Vega" in some parts of the rollo.

1
Rollo, pp. 120-121; penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Mario
V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
2
Id. at 145-148; penned by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao
and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concuning.
3
435 Phil. 83 (2002).
4
Id. at 92.
(2)URES -more-
~11
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 254067
explain why he or she was unable to abide by the rules. 5 Here, the only reason
offered by petitioner for availing of the motion is her counsel's heavy
workload, which reason is neither compelling nor meritorious. Thus, the CA
correctly found petitioner's excuse to be unacceptable and utterly lame to
extend the period for filing the petition.
Anent petitioner's claim that she should not be held civilly liable
because she was merely a guarantor, this Court agrees with the findings of the
RTC that petitioner was not able to prove the same, to wit:
The argument that Vega is a mere guarantor has no leg to stand on

because there was no Contract of Guaranty. A guaranty is not presumed; it
must be express[ed] and cannot extend to more than what is stipulated
therein. Guaranty falls under the Statute of Frauds since it is a special
promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another. Thus,
guaranty must not only be expressed but must also be reduced to writing.
Since there was no contract of guaranty, the argument must fail. 6
Moreover, in cases like violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a special

law, the intent in issuing a check is immaterial. The law has made the mere
act of issuing a bad check equivalent to malum prohibitum, an act prescribed
by the legislature for being deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare.
The only inquiry in mala prohibita cases is whether the law has been
breached. 7 Thus, regardless of petitioner's intent, she remains civilly liable
because the act or omission, particularly the making and issuing of the subject
check, from which her civil liability arises, evidently exist.
However, this Court deems it necessary to impose interest on the

monetary awards of the trial court. To be consistent with Nacar v. Gallery
Frames ,8 and in accordance with Section 1 of Resolution 796, dated May 16,
2013, of the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the interest
on monetary awards shall be fixed at twelve percent (12%) per annum from
the date of judicial or extrajudicial demand until June 30, 2013 and six percent
(6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until satisfaction thereof. Applying the
foregoing, the rate of 12% interest per annum shall be applied from the time
the Complaint was filed on October 12, 2004 until June 30, 2013. From July
1, 2013 until fully paid, 6% interest per annum shall be imposed.
5
Labao v. Flores, 649 Phil. 213,223 (2010).
6
Rollo, p. 114.
7
Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Felipe, 720 Phil. 828, 840 (2013), citing Palana v. People, 560 Phil. 558, 569
(2007).
8
716 Phil. 267 (2013).
- more -
(2)URES I➔/,
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 254067
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The October 4, 2019 and

September 28, 2020 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
No. 43902 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Ruth P.
Vega is ORDERED to PAY the private complainants the amount of Four
Hundred Fotty-E ight Thousand Pesos (P448,000.00) with legal interest of
twelve percent (12%) p er annum from October 12, 2004 until June 30, 2013
and six percent ( 6%) per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid. The total
amount of the foregoing shall, in turn, earn interest at the rate of 6% p er
annum. from finality of the Resolution until fu ll payment thereof.
SO ORDERED. (Delos Santos, J, designated as additional member

per Raffle dated January 11 , 2021, vice Lopez, M., J)"
UINOTUAZON
!erk ofCourt /JJ$,
02 MAR 20'2I 3/J
THE LAW FIRM OF CASAUAY COLOMA

FRANCrsco ESTRELLADO
JUDGMENT DTVlSION (x)
& ASSOCIATES (reg)
Supreme Court, Manila
Counsel for Petitioner
3/F, Victoria One Building PUBLIC INFORMAT!ON OFFICE (x)
Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]
ATTY. ZENON S. SUAREZ (reg)
Counsel for Respondent OFFICE OF THE C HlEF ATTORNEY (x)
Rm. 3 11-3 12 Web-Jet Building
O FFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
No. 64 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (x)
Supreme Court, Manila
OFFICE OF THE SOLIClTOR GENERAL (reg)
134 Amorsolo Street COURT OF APPEALS (x)
1229 Legaspi Village
Ma. Orosa Street
Makati City Ermita, 1000 Manila
CA-G.R. CR No. 43902
HON. PRESIDING JUDGE (reg)
Regional Trial Court, Branch 220 Please notify the Court of any change in your address.
Quezon City GR254067. 2/01 /202 1(2)U RES
(Crim. Case No. R-QZN-13-04587-92-CR)
(2)URES

GR 254067 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR 254067 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

"G.R. No. 254067 (Ruth P. Vega* v. People of the Philippines). -

Heavy workload, which is relative and often self-serving, ought to

Similarly in this case, petitioner's only justification in her motion for

• Also known as "Ruth G. Vega" in some parts of the rollo.

The argument that Vega is a mere guarantor has no leg to stand on

Moreover, in cases like violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a special

However, this Court deems it necessary to impose interest on the

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The October 4, 2019 and

SO ORDERED. (Delos Santos, J, designated as additional member

THE LAW FIRM OF CASAUAY COLOMA

You might also like