Damaging mistake

When a decision is appealed to the wrong appellate court, what should said court do with the case? This is the issue raised in this case of Mr. Mauricio (not his true name).

Mr. Mauricio was the School Superintendent of a State College of Science and Technology in Cebu. Based on the complaint filed by 13 secondary school teachers and the librarian of said State College before the Ombudsman, an Information for violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed against Mr. Mauricio before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). He was charged with causing undue injury to the said complainants for deliberately withholding and failing to furnish them with copies of their appointments duly approved by the College President showing their promotions and increase in salary, deliberately failing to implement the salary increase and unjustly withholding the salary differentials.

After pleading not guilty upon arraignment, Mauricio filed a motion for the inhibition of the RTC Judge allegedly because one of the complainants was the niece of said judge. The Judge then stated in open court that for the moment he would just study the motion for inhibition and will issue the order within a short period of time.

But before any ruling on the motion was issued, trial still proceeded until the Judge decided the case on the merits, found Mauricio guilty as charged and sentenced him to imprisonment ranging from 6 years and one month to 10 years and one day as well as to indemnify complainants the amount of salaries withheld.

Mauricio appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) on the same day of the promulgation of the decision on July 8, 1998. Then on April 1, 1999 he filed his brief before the CA.

But instead of ruling on the merits of the case, the CA declared on May 30, 2001, that it had no jurisdiction to act on the appealed case. And after getting the Office of the Solicitor General’s manifestation that it has no objection to the transfer of the case to the Sandiganbayan (SB), the CA issued a resolution dated August 6, 2001 transferring the records of the case to the said court.

On October 2, 2001 however, the SB resolved to return the transferred records to the CA pursuant to paragraph 2 Section 2 of Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court mandating that “An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright” Was the SB correct?

 Yes. Pursuant to Section 4 © of RA 8249, it is the SB that has exclusive jurisdiction over final judgments, orders or resolutions of the RTC in cases of this nature. There is nothing in this Section that can conceivably justify Mauricio’s filing of the appeal with the CA. The SB’s act of returning the records to the CA can be justified by Mauricio’s earlier erroneous filing of his appeal before the CA. The SB merely accorded the CA with the courtesy due to a co-equal judicial body and gave the CA the opportunity to rectify the error in transferring the case to it instead of dismissing the case outright.

The CA’s hesitance to dismiss Mauricio’s appeal as evidenced by its resolution to transfer said appeal to the SB compounded Mauricio’s erroneous filing. Mere invocation of substantial justice as a ground for relaxation of the rules does not suffice to cover up Mauricio’s fatal error.

An error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal if the correction in designating the proper appellate court is made within the 15-day period to appeal. Once made within the said period, the designation of the proper appellate court may be allowed. Otherwise, the appeal should be dismissed outright pursuant to Section 2 (2) of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.

In this case the supposed correction of the error in filing the appeal came from the CA after the expiration of the period to appeal. The RTC promulgated its decision on July 8, 1998. Mauricio filed his notice of appeal on the same day. The CA issued the resolution declaring its lack of jurisdiction on May 30, 2001, clearly beyond the 15-day period to appeal (Melencion vs. Sandiganbayan and People, G.R. 150684, June 12, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]