MARILYN HILA Y VILLENA PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MYRA S. REVIS, RESPONDENTS.

Hilao versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Marilyn Hila y Villena against the People of the Philippines and Myra S. Revis. It is a criminal case that reached the Supreme Court on a petition for review, and it matters to the reviewee for one reason above all: it shows, in the plainest possible form, what happens when a party fails to perfect an appeal within the period fixed by the Court. The decision is short, almost abrupt, and that is precisely its teaching. The Supreme Court does not linger on the merits. It looks only at the calendar, at the record, and at the consequence that follows when a litigant lets the period lapse. The case is therefore a lesson in the discipline of deadlines, and in the finality that the rules attach to a judgment once the time to appeal has run without a petition having been filed.

Procedural History

The case came to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals. On September 21, 2013, the petitioner received the Court's resolution requiring her to file her petition for review within fifteen days from notice. The petitioner did not file within that period. Instead, the record shows that she filed a motion for additional extension of time. The Court of Appeals, through its Case Management Information System Verification Report dated February 27, 2014, certified that no petition had been filed. With more than fifteen days having elapsed from September 21, 2013, the Supreme Court treated the appeal as abandoned and dismissed the case. The decision was issued with Justice Reyes, Junior, as Chairperson, and Justices Inting and Lopez concurring.

Facts

The material facts are few and they are procedural. The petitioner, Marilyn Hila y Villena, was a party in a criminal case before the lower courts, with the People of the Philippines and Myra S. Revis as respondents. She sought to bring her case to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

On September 21, 2013, the petitioner received the Supreme Court's resolution directing her to file that petition for review within fifteen days from notice. That period is the whole battleground of the case. The petitioner did not file the petition within the fifteen days. What appears in the record is a motion for additional extension of time.

The Court of Appeals, through its Case Management Information System Verification Report dated February 27, 2014, confirmed that no petition had been filed. By then, more than fifteen days had elapsed from September 21, 2013. On that record, the Supreme Court ruled that the appeal was deemed abandoned and dismissed the case.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner perfected her appeal by filing the petition for review within the fifteen days from notice required by the Court's resolution.
• Whether or not the appeal should be dismissed as abandoned for failure to file the petition for review within the period fixed by the Court.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory provision. Its operative rule is the Court's own directive fixing the period to appeal, which the resolution states in these terms:

On September 21, 2013, Petitioner received this Court's Resolution requiring her to file her petition for Review within 15 days from notice.

That directive is the measure of the petitioner's compliance, and it is against that fifteen-day period that the Court determined whether the appeal was perfected or abandoned.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court resolved that the petitioner did not perfect her appeal. The resolution required the petition for review within fifteen days from notice, and notice was received on September 21, 2013. The Court of Appeals, through its Case Management Information System Verification Report dated February 27, 2014, showed that no petition had been filed. The motion for additional extension of time did not cure the failure, because no petition followed it.

On the second issue, the Court resolved that the appeal must be dismissed as abandoned. Its reasoning rests entirely on the lapse of the period, stated in the decision itself:

Given that more than 15 days had elapsed from September 21, 2013, the appeal is deemed ABANDONED and the case is DISMISSED.

The Court did not reach the merits of the criminal case. It did not weigh evidence, revisit the findings of the lower courts, or pass upon the guilt or innocence of the accused. The failure to file within the period was itself dispositive. The verification report supplied the factual basis, and the lapse of time supplied the legal consequence.

Doctrine

Three rules may be drawn from this case and written directly into an answer. First, the period to appeal is fixed and mandatory; when the Court requires a petition for review within fifteen days from notice, compliance is measured strictly against that period. Second, the filing of a motion for additional extension of time does not perfect an appeal; what perfects it is the actual filing of the petition within the period allowed. Third, where the period has lapsed and no petition has been filed, the appeal is deemed abandoned and the case is dismissed, and the Court will not proceed to the merits. These rules tie directly to the directive quoted above, which fixed the fifteen-day period from notice, and to the holding that, more than fifteen days having elapsed, the appeal is deemed abandoned and the case is dismissed. The reviewee should note that the decision speaks of abandonment and dismissal, not of a ruling on the merits; the dismissal is the procedural consequence of the missed deadline.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the case, holding that the appeal was deemed abandoned for failure to file the petition for review within the fifteen days from notice.

Remember This

Memorize the line: more than fifteen days having elapsed from notice, the appeal is deemed abandoned and the case is dismissed. Examiners use this case to test whether a candidate knows that a motion for extension does not perfect an appeal, and that a missed period closes the door to the merits.