10.
G.R. No. 197582
June 29, 2015
JULIE S. SUMBILLA, Petitioner, Petitioner, vs. MATRIX FINANCE CORORATION, Respondent.
In this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, petitioner Julie S Sum!illa see"s the li!eral application of procedural rules to correct the penalt# imposed in the $ecision dated Januar# 14, %&&9 of the 'etropolitan (rial (rial Court )'e(C* of 'a"ati Cit#, +ranch 7, in Criminal Case -os .%119 to .%1174 which had alread# attained finalit# in view of petitioner/s failure to timel# file an appeal 1
FACTS! Petitioner obtained a cash loan from respondent Matrix Finance Corporation. As partial payment for her loan, petitioner issued Philippine Business Bank Checks. he six checks have a uniform face value of P!,!!".## P!,!!".## each. $pon maturity, the six checks %ere presented by respondent to the dra%ee bank for payment, ho%ever, all the checks %ere dishonored on the &round that they %ere dra%n a&ainst a closed account. Petitioner's refusal to heed the demand letter of respondent for the payment of the face value of the dishonored checks culminated in her indictment for six counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bl&. (( )BP ((* in Branch !", MeC of Makati.
he MeC found petitioner criminally and civilly liable for the issuance of the six rubber checks. For each count of violation of BP (( involvin& a check %ith a face value of P!,!!".##, P !,!!".##, the MeC meted petitioner a penalty of fine amountin& to P +#,###.##, %ith subsidiary imprisonment. er civil liability for the six consolidated cases %as computed in the total amount of P-#,##(.##. P-#,##(.##. nstead of filin& a /otice of Appeal, petitioner opted to file a Motion for Reconsideration before the MeC. he Motion %as denied bein& a pleadin& barred under the Revised Rules on 1ummary Procedure. he MeC further noted that the prohibited motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner %ill not suspend the runnin& of the period to perfect an appeal. 0
1ubse2uently, 1ubse2uently, the /otice of Appeal filed by petitioner %as also denied for havin& been filed beyond the 345day re&lementary period. 6enied7 Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule !4 o f the Rules in Branch !3, Re&ional rial Court )RC* of Makati City. City. 6ismissed7 he Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner met the same fate of dismissal. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals )CA* via a petition for revie% under Rule -( of the Rules of Court. he CA, ho%ever, ruled that an ordinary appeal under 1ection ()a*, Rule -3 of the Rules of Court is the correct remedy under the circumstances because the RC rendered the decision in the petition for certiorari under Rule !4 of the Rules of Court in the exercise of its ori&inal 8urisdiction. After she received a copy of the 9une (+, (#33 Resolution of the CA denyin& her Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file the instant petition. Petitioner filed her Petition for Revie% on Certiorari %ithin the period of extension &ranted in our Resolution 1he ascribed to the CA a sole error: ; /? 6;/>/? ; P; ;C/CA=> A/6 A/6 /< ;@;RC1/? 1 P<1; 6$> P; A ?;R C<$R.
six counts of violation of BP ((. no%in& that her conviction had already attained finality, petitioner seeks the relaxation of the rules of procedure so that the alle&ed erroneous penalty imposed by the MeC can be modified to make it in accord %ith existin& la% and 8urisprudence.Respondent countered that the ri&ht to appeal bein& a mere statutory privile&e can only be exercised in accordance %ith the rules, and the lost appeal cannot be resurrected throu&h the present remedial recourse of a petition for revie% on certiorari.
ISSUE! he main issue to be resolved is %hether the penalty imposed in the MeC 6ecision, %hich is already final and executory, may still be modified.
RULING! >;1. he petition is meritorious.
Petitioner does not dispute the finality of the 6ecision. Petitioner asserted that the maximum penalty of fine that can be imposed a&ainst her in each count of violation of BP (( is double the amount of the face value of the dishonored check only or P30,00-.##. he fine of P1#,###.## for each count is thus excessive. 1he further implied that the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment contravened 1ection (# of Article of the Constitution %hich proscribes imprisonment as a punishment for not payin& a debt. 1ection 3 of BP (( provides: 1;C
modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or la%, and %hether it %ill be made by the court that rendered it or by the hi&hest court of the land. $pon finality of the 8ud&ment, the Court loses its 8urisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. EM"ASIS "ERE! /onetheless, the immutability of final 8ud&ments is not a hard and fast rule. he Court has the po%er and prero&ative to suspend its o%n rules and to exempt a case from their operation if and %hen 8ustice re2uires it.After all, procedural rules %ere conceived to aid the attainment of 8ustice. f a strin&ent application of the rules %ould hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial 8ustice, the former must yield to the latter, as specifically mandated under 1ection (, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court: (4
S0C % Construction (hese rules shall !e li!erall# construed in order to promote their o!2ect and to assist the parties in o!tainin3 2ust, speed#, and inepensive determination of ever# action and proceedin3 Conseuentl# final and eecutor# 2ud3ments were reversed when the interest of su!stantial 2ustice is at sta"e and where special and compellin3 reasons called for such actions n Barnes v. 9ud&e Padilla, the court declared as follo%s: x x x a final and executory 8ud&ment can no lon&er be attacked by any of the parties or be modified, directly or indirectly, even by the hi&hest court of the land. o%ever, the Court has relaxed this rule in order to serve substantial 8ustice considerin& )a* matters of life, liberty, honor or property, )b* the existence of special or compellin& circumstances, )c* the merits of the case, )d* a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or ne&li&ence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, )e* a lack of any sho%in& that the revie% sou&ht is merely frivolous and dilatory, and )f* the other party %ill not be un8ustly pre8udiced thereby. nvariably, rules of procedure should be vie%ed as mere tools desi&ned to facilitate the attainment of 8ustice. heir strict and ri&id application, %hich %ould result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial 8ustice, must al%ays be esche%ed. ;ven the Rules of Court reflects this principle. he po%er to suspend or even disre&ard rules can be so pervasive and compellin& as to alter even that %hich this Court itself had already declared to be final. he 8ud&ment of conviction %as already final in Ri&or v. he 1uperintendent, /e% Bilibid Prison %hen the Court corrected the minimum and maximum periods of the indeterminate sentence imposed on the accused %hich exceeded the period of the imposable penalty. he correction %as made in the interest of 8ustice and only for the penalty imposed a&ainst petitioner to be in accordance %ith la% and nothin& else. Both People v. ?at%ard, and People v. Barro cited the duty and inherent po%er of the Court to correct the erroneous penalties meted on the accused in a final and executory 8ud&ments, and make it conform to the penalty prescribed by la%. he interest of 8ustice and the duty and inherent po%er of the Court %ere the reasons anchored upon in ;strada v. People in rulin& that it is befittin& to modify the penalty imposed on petitioner even thou&h the notice of appeal %as belatedly filed. ere, the penalty imposed is obviously out of ran&e of that prescribed in 1ection 3 of BP ((. Moreover, since the term of the subsidiary imprisonment is
that the penalty of fine meted on the petitioner be accordin&ly corrected %ithin the maximum limits prescribed under 1ection 3 of BP ((. ence, the penalty of fine of P+#,###.## meted on petitioner in Criminal Case /os. 0(33!E to 0(33"- for each count of violation of BP (( is corrected to double the face value of each rubber check involved or P30,00-.## only.
P;/A=> CA//< B; MP<1;6 A1 < R$/ C<$/;R ; C
Petition is ?RA/;6. n the interest of 8ustice, the 6ecision dated 9anuary 3-, (##E of Branch !", Metropolitan rial Court of Makati City in Criminal Case /os. 0(33!E to 0(33"- is M<6F;6. A##u$e% Ju&'e S. Su()'&&* '$ +ee)- oun% GUILT/ )e-on% e*$on*)&e %ou) o $' #oun$ o 'o&*'on o B**$ *()*n$* B'3. 22, *n% '$ $enen#e% o 4*- * FINE o T"IRTEEN T"OUSAN AN T"REE "UNRE T"IRT/6FOUR ESOS 1,.00: o e*#+ #oun, *n% o 'n%e(n'- 4'*e #o(4&*'n*n M*' F'n*n#e Co4o*'on +e o*& *(oun o 0,002.00 4&u$ ;< 'nee$ 4e *nnu( o( Se4e()e 21, 2002 un'& u&& 4*-(en.
