FIRST DIVISION
OSCAR A. BAGO,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
135638
January 20, 2003
-versus-
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
On March 4, 1997,
petitioner Oscar A. Bago was found guilty in Criminal Case No. 93-12562
of Falsification of Public Document, defined and penalized under
Article
171 of the Revised Penal Code, by the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch
7, and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four
(4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to
eight
(8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner interposed
an appeal before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 21018.
In due course, he was directed to submit his Appellant’s Brief on or
before
December 22, 1997.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, based on the
report of the Judicial Records Division of the Court of Appeals, no
appellant’s
brief was filed by petitioner within the period given. Petitioner was
required
to show cause why his appeal should not be considered abandoned.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 9, 1998, petitioner’s
counsel filed a manifestation stating the Appellant’s Brief was filed
seasonably
by his secretary with the Court of Appeals. However, the original of
the
same was inadvertently filed with the copies intended for the Brief
Section
because there were Christmas parties going on. Petitioner’s counsel
likewise
admitted that the Office of the Solicitor General had just been
furnished
with a copy of the Appellant’s Brief due to the failure of her
secretary
to send it on December 22, 1997.[4]
Not satisfied with petitioner’s
explanation, the appeal was dismissed in a Resolution dated May 15,
1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration was denied; hence, the instant petition filed under
Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, where petitioner argues that,
contrary
to the findings of the Court of Appeals, he was able to file his appeal
brief on December 22, 1997, within the reglementary period, as
evidenced
by the rubber stamp mark on the upper right hand corner of his copy
thereof.
Granting arguendo that the brief was filed beyond the period set by the
appellate court, nevertheless, it must be admitted and given due course
for justice and equity must prevail over technicality of the law.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent, through
the Office of the Solicitor General, counters that petitioner hardly
deserves
the leniency of the Court in the application of procedural rules for,
instead
of admitting his shortcomings, he shifted the blame to others. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petition is bereft
of merit. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner implores
this Court for a liberal application of technical rules of procedure.
However,
it is axiomatic that Rules of Court, promulgated by authority of law,
have
the force and effect of law.[5]
More importantly, rules prescribing the time within which certain acts
must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are absolutely
indispensable
to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy
discharge
of judicial business. Strict compliance with such rules is mandatory
and
imperative.[6]
Only strong considerations of equity, which are wanting in this case,
will
lead us to allow an exception to the procedural rule in the interest of
substantial justice.[7]
Consequently, the instant
petition must perforce be denied. Petitioner has failed to show
compelling
reasons to relax the rules in his favor. His failure to comply strictly
with the procedural requirements of the Rules of Court and observe the
reglementary periods prescribed therein will not warrant the
application
of equity and the liberal construction of the Rules. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The
Resolution
dated May 15, 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 21018 is
AFFIRMED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.
,
(Chairman), Vitug, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
CA Records, p. 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Ibid., at 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., at 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., at 30.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Dayrit, 123 SCRA 203, 207
(1983),
citing Shioji v. Harvey, 43 Phil. 333.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
FJR Garments Industries v. Court of Appeals, 130 SCRA 216, 218 (1984).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Lamsan Trading, Inc. v. Leogardo, Jr., 144 SCRA 571, 578 (1986).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |