Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

126. ESTINOZO VS CA Cases Nos.

1264, 1265, 1267 and 1269absent any


direct testimony from the complainants in those cases.
FACTS:

Petitioner represented to private complainants


Gaudencio Ang, Rogelio Ceniza, Nilo Cabardo,
ISSUE: Whether Rule 65 is the proper remedy.
Salvacion Nueve, Virgilio Maunes, Apolinaria Olayvar,
and Mariza Florendo that she was one of the owners of
Golden Overseas Employment7 and that she was HELD: NO
recruiting workers to be sent abroad.

She then asked from the said complainants the Immediately apparent is that the petition is the
payment of placement and processing fees. The private wrong remedy to question the appellate courts issuances.
complainants paid the fees, relying on her promise that Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court expressly
they would be deployed. On the promised date of their provides that a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a
departure, however, private complainants never left the judgment or final order or resolution of the CA may file a
country. This prompted private complainants to suspect verified petition for review on certiorari.
that something was amiss, and they demanded the return
of their money. Petitioner assured them refund of the A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
fees and even executed promissory notes 11 to several of and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually
the complainants; but, as before, her assurances were exclusive remedies.Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal
mere pretenses.12 or any other adequate remedy.

Complainants then initiated formal charges for


estafa against petitioner The rule, as it stands now without exception, is that
the 15-day reglementary period for appealing or filing a
The RTC rendered its Decision finding motion for reconsideration or new trial cannot be extended,
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges except in cases before this Court, as one of last resort, which
of estafa. ON April 30, 2001 the CA ffirmed the ruling of may, in its sound discretion grant the extension
the trial court. requested.39 This rule also applies even if the motion is filed
before the expiration of the period sought to be
extended.40 Thus, the appellate court correctly denied
On May 30, 2001, within the 15-day reglementary petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion
period to file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for for Reconsideration.
review,24 petitioner filed with the appellate court a Motion for
Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration. CA It is well to point out that with petitioners erroneous
denied the said motiON. filing of a motion for extension of time and with her non-
filing of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration 27 of from the CAs decision, the challenged decision has already
the June 28, 2001 Resolution of the CA. The appellate court attained finality and may no longer be reviewed by this
denied the same, on August 17, 2001, in the other assailed Court. The instant Rule 65 petition cannot even substitute for
Resolution.28 the lost appeal
Displeased with this series of denials, petitioner
instituted the instant Petition for Certiorari29 under Rule
65, arguing, among others, that: (1) her previous counsel, We reiterate what we stated in Amatorio v.
by filing a prohibited pleading, foreclosed her right to file a People44 that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks
motion for reconsideration of the CAs decision, and to be relieved from the effects of the judgment when the loss
consequently an appeal therefrom;30 (2) she should not of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence, or to a
be bound by the mistake of her previous counsel mistaken mode of procedure.
especially when the latters negligence and mistake
would prejudice her substantial rights and would affect
her life and liberty;31 (3) the appellate court gravely
abused its discretion when it affirmed petitioners
conviction for the other four (4) criminal casesCriminal