Agote vs. Lorenzo (G.R. No. 142675, July 22, 2005) FA!"# Agote, in this appeal by way of a peon for review on cerorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeks to annul and set aside the following resoluons of the Court of Appeals. He was charged before the respondent udge with !llegal "ossession of #irear$s under "residenal %ecree &o. '())*4+ and violaon of C-/C Resoluon &o. 0(0)*5+ 12un 3an he trial court rendered a udg$ent of convicon in both cases. 6ubse7uently, Republic Act &o. (084*)+ was approved into law. He pointed out, a$ong others, that the penalty for illegal posses possessio sion n of 9rear$ 9rear$ss under under ".%. .%. &o. '() '()) ) has alread already y been been reduce reduced d by the subse7 subse7uen uentt enact$ent of Rep. Act &o. (084, hence, the la:er law, law, being favorable to hi$, should be the one applied in deter$ining his penalty for illegal possession of 9rear$s, peoner $oved for a reconsideraon of the decision of the trial court but was denied. herefro$, peoner went to the Court of Appeals on a peon for cerorari with prayer for a te$porary restraining order but the appellate court dis$issed peoners recourse. $R%&'RAL ""& (1)# !s the peon a 7ueson of law; !f yes, can peoner directly brought the case fro$ RC to 6C; RLNG# *&". *&". erence arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts Appeals fro$ udg$ents of the RC in the e?ercise of their original urisdicon $ust be brought directly to the 6upre$e Court in cases where the appellant raises only 7uesons of law by way of a peon for review on cerorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the '88@ Rules of Civil "rocedure, as a$ended,*'0+ pursuant to Rule 4', 6econ 0 1c. "eoner therefore should have appealed the trial courts ruling to 6C.his right to resort to a peon for cerorari under Rule )5 was e>ecvely foreclosed, precisely because one of the re7uire$ents for the avail$ent of the la:er re$edy is that there should be no appeal, or any plain, speedy and ade7uate re$edy in the ordinary course of law, the re$edies of appeal and cerorari being $utually e?clusive and not alternave or successive. $R%&'RAL ""& (2)# Can the 6C suspend procedural rules; RLNG#
6. !t was shown that only aBer the lapsed $ore than 9Been 1'5 days when peoner 9led his wrong re$edy of cerorari with the appellate court. 3e that as it $ay, the Court feels that it $ust s7uarely address the issue raised in this case regarding the retroacvity of Rep. Act &o. (084, what with the reality that the provisions thereof are undoubtedly favorable to peoner. #or this purpose, then, we shall e?ercise our prerogave to set aside technicalies in the Rules and hold the bull by its horns, so to speak. ABer all, the power of this Court to suspend its own rules whenever the interest of usce re7uires is not without legal authority or precedent. =n7uesonably, the Court has the power to suspend procedural rules in the e?ercise of its inherent power, as e?pressly recognied in the Constuon, to pro$ulgate rules concerning pleading, pracce and procedure in all courts. !n proper cases, procedural rules $ay be rela?ed or suspended in the interest of substanal usce, which otherwise $ay be $iscarried because of a rigid and for$alisc adherence to such rules.
