552 Phil. 686
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered convicting accused Rafael M. Bitanga of the crime of estafa defined and penalized under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum with the necessary penalties provided by law and to indemnify private complainant Traders Royal Bank the amount of P742,884.00 and to pay the cost.On January 28, 2002, Bitanga filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with Prayer for Other Reliefs[11] on the ground that extrinsic fraud was allegedly perpetuated upon him by his counsel of record, Atty. Benjamin Razon.[12] He alleged that he received copy of the February 29, 2000 RTC Decision only on December 13, 2001.[13]
SO ORDERED.[10]
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Muntinlupa City, Branch 153 being tainted with circumstances constitutive of extrinsic fraud which deprived the petitioner herein of his day in court is SET ASIDE. Resultantly, Criminal Case No. 103677 is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings to give herein petitioner opportunity to present his evidence in said case and for the trial court to render judgment in accordance with the evidence adduced. Corollarily, the petitioner may be released and allowed to be on bail unless there are other valid and legal reasons for his continued detention.and denied the People's Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution[16] of July 18, 2003.
SO ORDERED.[15]
The Petition for Review is meritorious.I
The two previous counsels were not negligent in defending respondent.
II
Assuming without admitting the existence of negligence on the part of the previous counsels, the same does not constitute extrinsic fraud.III
The Court of Appeals did not accord the previous counsels their right to procedural due process of law.IV
Jumping bail, respondent waived his right to present his evidence.[17]
Section 1. Coverage.– This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment being questioned was rendered in a criminal case. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure itself does not permit such recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from the enumeration of the provisions of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which have suppletory application to criminal cases. Section 18, Rule 124 thereof, provides:
Sec. 18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal cases. – The provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.There is no basis in law or the rules, therefore, to extend the scope of Rule 47 to criminal cases. As we explained in Macalalag v. Ombudsman,[18] when there is no law or rule providing for this remedy, recourse to it cannot be allowed, viz.:
Parenthetically, R.A. 6770 is silent on the remedy of annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. In Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario, the Court has held that since The Ombudsman Act specifically deals with the remedy of an aggrieved party from orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only, the right to appeal is not to be considered granted to parties aggrieved by orders and decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases. The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of law. There must then be a law expressly granting such right. This legal axiom is also applicable and even more true in actions for annulment of judgments which is an exception to the rule on finality of judgments.[19]The Petition for Annulment of Judgment of the February 29, 2000 Decision of the RTC in Criminal Case No. 103677 was therefore an erroneous remedy. It should not have been entertained, much less granted, by the CA.
The CA equated the foregoing behavior of said counsels to extrinsic fraud in that it impaired Bitanga's right to due process and rendered the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 103677 a farce. Citing a ruling of the appellate court in Sps. Carlos and Erlinda Ong v. Nieves Jacinto, et al.,[26] the CA held:
- Atty. Benjamin Razon failed to inform his client of the scheduled hearings for the receptioon of defense evidence. This resulted in depriving herein petitioner of a chance to prove his innocence by presenting a valid defense;
- He failed to attend the scheduled hearing for reception of petitioners' evidence for which reason the case was deemed submitted for decision without his evidence;
- He never bother to verify what transpired at the hearing he failed to attend, and thus, was not able to file the necessary pleadings to lift the order considering the case submitted for decision without petitioners' evidence;
- He withdrew his appearance as counsel for the petitioner without getting the express conformity of his client. Thus, the court appointed a counsel de officio from the Public Attorney's Office;
- The counsel de officio, however, exerted no effort in contacting the petitioner to prepare him for defense evidence. He simply submitted the case for decision and waived the presentation of Defense evidence;
- After receiving the court a quo's adverse decision, convicting herein petitioner, he did not notify or inform his clients, herein petitioners; and
- He did not appeal the case to the Court of Appeals; or avail themselves of other remedies under the law.[25]
While it is true that neglect or failure of counsel to inform his client of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal will not justify setting aside a judgment that is valid and regular on its face, this rule is not unbending and admits of exceptions as where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process. This Court believes, and so holds, that the enumerated deplorable acts and omissions of petitioner's counsel on record, finding no abatement either later from his court-appointed lawyer, taken together, more than suffice to paint a clear picture of delinquency, gross negligence and recklessness constitutive of extrinsic fraud.[27]Bitanga defends the foregoing view of the CA as consistent with a basic rule in criminal procedure that every leeway must be given an accused person to defend himself, lest he be wrongfully deprived of liberty.[28]
Moreover, annulment of judgment may either be based on the ground that the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or that the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud. By no stretch of the imagination can we equate the negligence of the petitioner and his former counsel to extrinsic fraud as contemplated in the cited rules. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. The fraud or deceit cannot be of the losing party's own doing, nor must it contribute to it. The extrinsic fraud must be employed against it by the adverse party, who, because of some trick, artifice, or device, naturally prevails in the suit. This Court notes that no such fraud or deceit was properly proved against the private respondent. Indeed, the petitioner has no reason to protest his own negligence.[38] (Emphasis supplied)In the present case, the acts and omissions attributed to counsel amounted to negligence only, which cannot be considered extrinsic fraud. Moreover, said counsel's negligence was caused by Bitanga's act of jumping bail.
The RTC accepted the foregoing explanation of Atty. Razon and allowed him to withdraw his appearance as counsel even without the conformity of Bitanga whose whereabouts could not be traced.[42]Moreover, the RTC ordered the arrest of Bitanga and the forfeiture of his cash bond because of his continued non-appearance. The RTC also considered his right to present evidence waived.[43]
- That on May 25, 1999 from 7:00AM to 9:30AM counsel waited for the accused to pick him up at his residence in order both counsel and accused can go to court together, it being the defense evidence of the accused, counsel was not even feeling well that morning on account of his swollen leg;
- That the accused never showed up putting counsel in a quandary whether he has been relieved as counsel for the accused or not. The accused likewise never contacted counsel nor showed up in person x x x counsel in his residence or office or called up by telephone x x x counsel made inquiry at the accused place of business but was informed that the accused had already vacated the premises leaving no forwarding address where he can be located or contacted. It is now June and still accused never contacted counsel so that counsel is left without alternative but to withdraw from the case.[41] (Emphasis added)