GR No. 197582
June 29, 2015
Facts
In payment of her loan, petitioner issued six checks which bounced for being drawn from a closed account. Each of the six checks has a face value of P6,667. The MTC found petitioner guilty and sentenced her to pay a fine equivalent to 80,000. Such fine was based on the total value of the six checks that bounced. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was dismissed because it is a prohibited motion under the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal but was dismissed for having filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Hence, the judgement becomes final and executory.
With that, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the SC. Petitioner acknowledged the procedural lapse she had committed and the finality of the decision, but she is now asking the Court for the relaxation of the procedural rules so that the alleged erroneous penalty imposed by the MeTC can be modified to make it in accord with existing law and jurisprudence.
Respondent countered that the right to appeal being a mere statutory privilege can only be exercised in accordance with the rules, and the lost appeal cannot be resurrected through the present remedial recourse of a petition for review on certiorari.
Issue
Whether or not the penalty imposed by the METC which has become final and executory may still be modified.
Held
Yes. The penalty here is erroneous for being contrary to Section 1 of BP 22 which provides that the maximum penalty for violation of BP 22 should not be more than double the amount of the check. Moreover, the basis of computing the penalty should be the face value of “each” check and not the total value of each check that bounced. In this case, the basis for computing the value of each check is the total value of the six checks that bounced and not the face value of each check that bounced. Hence, the penalty imposed by the MeTC is excessive and contrary to law and jurisprudence.
Notwithstanding the doctrine of the immutability of judgments wherein a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified, the Court has the power and prerogative to suspend its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation if and when justice requires it. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter pursuant to Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, final and executory judgments were reversed when the interest of substantial justice is at stake and where special and compelling reasons called for such actions.
SEC. 2. Construction. — These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.
Here, the penalty imposed is obviously out of range of that prescribed in Section 1 of BP 22. Substantial justice dictates that the penalty of fine meted on the petitioner be accordingly corrected within the maximum limits prescribed under Section 1 of BP 22. Hence, the penalty of fine of P80,000.00 meted on petitioner in Criminal Case Nos. 321169 to 321174 for each count of violation of BP 22 is corrected to double the face value of each rubber check involved or P13,334.00 only.
Case Principle
General Rule : Doctrine of Immutability of Judgments – once a decision acquired finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable.
Exception : If substantial justice requires the exemption of a case from the doctrine of immutability of judgments.