G.R. No. 176015 - MERCEDITA T. GUASCH, VS. ARNALDO DELA CRUZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, her guilt not having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, petitioner was acquitted. On June 28, 2005, respondent received a copy of the said order. On July 14, 2005, respondent filed a Manifestation [10] with attached Motion to Amend Order dated June 16, 2005 [11] (Motion to Amend) to include a finding of civil liability of petitioner. In the Manifestation, respondent's counsel justified his failure to file the motion within the reglementary period of 15 days because all postal offices in Metro Manila were allegedly ordered closed in the afternoon due to the rally staged on Ayala Avenue. Meantime, on August 30, 2005, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari [12] with the Court of Appeals praying that the trial court's Order dated June 16, 2005 granting the demurrer to evidence be set aside. The trial court denied respondent's Motion to Amend in its Order [13] dated September 20, 2005 finding that counsel for respondent was inexcusably negligent; hence, the Order dated June 16, 2005 has become final and executory. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration [14] but the same was denied by the trial court in its Order [15] dated November 7, 2005. On December 7, 2005, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal [16] informing the trial court that he was appealing the Order dated September 20, 2005 and the Order dated November 7, 2005. The trial court likewise denied the notice of appeal in an Order [17] dated December 13, 2005. Consequently, on February 13, 2006, respondent filed a Supplemental Petition for Certiorari [18] with the Court of Appeals to set aside the Order dated September 20, 2005, the Order dated November 7, 2005, and the Order dated December 13, 2005. On August 31, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision. [19] On the issue of whether the issuance of the Order dated June 16, 2005 granting the demurrer to evidence was made with grave abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals ruled in the negative as it found that the trial court did not anchor the acquittal of petitioner on evidence other than that presented by the prosecution as contended by petitioner. On the issue of whether the denial of respondent's Motion to Amend was tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals ruled in the affirmative. The Court of Appeals ratiocinated that matters of paramount importance outweigh rules of procedure in this instance. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals ruled as follows: WHEREFORE, the assailed order dated September 20, 2005 denying petitioner's Motion to Amend Order dated 16 [June] 2005 is hereby SET ASIDE. Public respondent is hereby directed to determine and fix the amount due the petitioner. SO ORDERED.