9/3/2015

G.R.No.190970

TodayisThursday,September03,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.190970November24,2014
VILMAM.SULIMAN,Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.
DECISION
PERALTA,J.:
AssailedinthepresentpetitionforreviewoncertiorariistheResolution1oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)datedJuly
21, 2009, in CAG.R. CR No. 30693 which denied herein petitioner's Motion to Admit Attached Motion for
Reconsideration, as well as the appellate court's Resolution2 dated January 8, 2010, which likewise denied
petitioner'sMotionforReconsiderationoftheCAResolutiondatedJuly21,2009.
Thefactualandproceduralantecedentsofthecaseareasfollows:
Insix(6)Informations,3alldatedJune6,2003,hereinpetitionerandoneLuzP.Garciawerechargedbeforethe
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofManilawithtwo(2)countsofillegalrecruitmentunderSection6,paragraphs(a),(l)
and(m)ofRepublicActNo.8042,otherwiseknownastheMigrantWorkersandOverseasFilipinosActof1995,
aswellasfour(4)countsofestafaunderArticle315,paragraph2(a)oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Only petitioner was brought to trial as her coaccused, Garcia, eluded arrest and remained atlarge despite the
issuanceofawarrantforherarrest.
The six cases were consolidated and, after trial, the RTC of Manila, Branch 21, rendered judgment finding
petitionerguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtoftwo(2)countsofillegalrecruitmentandthree(3)countsofestafa.
ThedispositiveportionoftheRTCDecision,4datedJune7,2006,readsasfollows:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theCourtfindsasfollows:
1)InCrim.CaseNos.03216188and03216189,accusedVILMASULIMANGUILTYbeyondreasonable
doubtasprincipalofthecrimeschargedandisherebysentencedtosuffertheindeterminatepenaltyofSIX
(6)YEARSeachandtopayfineofP200,000.00foreachcount.
2)InCrim.CaseNo.03216190,accusedVILMASULIMANGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtasprincipal
ofthecrimechargedandisherebysentencedtosufferthepenaltyofSIX(6)MONTHSandONE(1)DAY
toTWO(2)YEARSandONE(1)DAYofprisioncorrectional(sic)andtoindemnifyAnthonyMancerayRey
theamountofP120,000.00withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvencyandtopaythecosts.
3)InCrim.CaseNo.03216191,accusedVILMASULIMANGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtasprincipal
of the crime of Estafa and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2)
MONTHSofprisioncorrectional(sic)andtoindemnifyprivatecomplainantPerlitaA.Prudenciotheamount
ofP132,460.00withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvencyandtopaythecosts.
4)InCrim.CaseNo.03216192,forfailureoftheprosecutiontoprovetheguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt,
accusedVILMASULIMANisherebyACQUITTEDofthecrimecharged.
5) In Crim. Case No. 03216193, accused VILMA SULIMAN is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as
principal of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6)
MONTHSandONE(1)DAYofprisioncorrectional(sic)andtoindemnifyJimmyTumabcaotheamountof
P21,400.00withoutsubsidiaryimprisonmentincasesofinsolvencyandtopaythecost.
Accordingly,thebondpostedforherprovisionallibertyisherebyCANCELLED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190970_2014.html

1/7

9/3/2015

G.R.No.190970

Considering that the accused Vilma Suliman was detained from January 6, 2003 to July 23, 2004 prior to her
postingbondforherprovisionalliberty,herperiodofdetentionshallbecreditedintheserviceofhersentence.
ConsideringthatLuzGarciahasnotbeenapprehendednorvoluntarilysurrenderedtodate,letwarrantbeissued
forherarrestandletthecaseagainstherbeARCHIVEDtobereinstateduponherapprehension.
SOORDERED.5
PetitionerfiledaMotionforReconsideration,6buttheRTCdenieditinitsOrder7datedJanuary23,2007forlack
ofmerit.
PetitionerthenfiledanappealwiththeCA.
OnMay21,2009,theCApromulgateditsDecision,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads,thus:WHEREFORE,in
view of the foregoing premises, the appeal filed in this case is hereby DENIED and consequently, DISMISSED.
TheassailedDecisiondatedJune7,2006oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch21,intheCityofManilainCriminal
Cases Nos. 03216188, 03216189, 03216190, 03216191 and 03216193 are hereby AFFIRMED with the
followingmodifications:
1.InCriminalCaseNos.03216188and03216189forillegalrecruitment,theCourtsentencesaccused
appellant VILMA SULIMAN to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day, as
minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00)foreachcount.
2. In Criminal Case No. 03216190 for estafa involving private complainant Anthony Mancera, the Court
sentencesaccusedappellantVilmaSulimantosufferaminimumperiodofsix(6)monthsandone(1)day
ofprisioncorreccionaltoamaximumtermoffifteen(15)years,eight(8)monthsandtwentyone(21)days
ofreclusiontemporal.
3.InCriminalCaseNo.03216191forestafainvolvingprivatecomplainantPerlitaA.Prudencio,theCourt
sentences accusedappellant Vilma Suliman to suffer the minimum period of four (4) years and two (2)
monthsofprisioncorreccionaltomaximumtermofseventeen(17)years,eight(8)monthsandtwentyone
(21)daysofreclusiontemporal.
4. In Crim. Case No. 03216193 for estafa involving private complainant Jimmy Tumabcao, the Court
sentencesaccusedappellantVilmaSulimantosuffertheminimumtermofsix(6)monthsandone(1)day
ofprisioncorreccionaltomaximumtermofsixyears,eight(8)monthsandtwentyone(21)daysofprision
mayor.
SOORDERED.8
Petitioner'scounselreceivedacopyoftheaboveCADecisiononMay26,2009.9However,neitherpetitionernor
her counsel filed a motion for reconsideration within the 15day reglementary period for filing the said motion.
Hence,onJune11,2009,thesubjectCADecisionbecamefinal.
On July 3, 2009, petitioner, through her new collaborating counsel, filed a Motion to Admit Attached Motion for
Reconsideration10 praying that the same be admitted in the higher interest of "substantial justice and due
process." Petitioner contended that her former counsel committed gross and inexcusable neglect of his duty as
counselinfailingtoimmediatelyinformpetitionerabouthisreceiptofthesubjectCADecision,therebydepriving
petitionerofherrighttofileamotionforreconsiderationwhich,inturn,isaviolationofherrighttodueprocess.
On July 21, 2009, the CA issueda Resolution denying petitioner's Motion to Admit Attached Motion for
Reconsideration.
PetitionerfiledaMotionforReconsideration,11buttheCAdenieditinitsResolutiondatedJanuary8,2010.
Hence,theinstantpetitionbasedonthefollowinggrounds:
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINNOTADMITTINGTHEMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATION
OFTHEPETITIONER
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING [THAT] PETITIONER SHOULD NOTBE
BOUNDBYTHEGROSSNEGLIGENCEOFATTY.MAYOINNOTINFORMINGHERABOUTHISRECEIPTOF
THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ADVERSE TO HER ON MAY 26, 2009 OR IN NOT FILING A
MOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONTOPROTECTTHERIGHTSANDINTERESTOFTHEPETITIONER.12
Thepetitionlacksmerit.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190970_2014.html

2/7

9/3/2015

G.R.No.190970

The Court is not persuaded by petitioner's contention that she should not be bound by her counsel's gross
neglectofdutyinnotinformingheroftheadversedecisionoftheCA.TheCourtagreeswiththeobservationof
the CA that petitioner is not entirely blameless as she was not vigilant in monitoring the progress of her case.
Evidenceofhernegligenceisthefactthatshedidnotmakeanyefforttopersonallyfollowupherappealwithher
counsel. Instead, she merely relied on a certain Conrad Lucero, the person who referred her to her counsel,
regarding updates ofher appeal with the CA. In this respect, the Court's ruling in Bejarasco, Jr. v. People13 is
instructive,towit:
Thegeneralruleisthataclientisboundbythecounselsacts,includingevenmistakesintherealmofprocedural
technique. The rationale for the rule isthat a counsel, once retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts
necessaryor,atleast,incidentaltotheprosecutionandmanagementofthesuitinbehalfofhisclient,suchthat
anyactoromissionbycounselwithinthescopeoftheauthorityisregarded,intheeyesofthelaw,astheactor
omissionoftheclienthimself.Arecognizedexceptiontotheruleiswhentherecklessorgrossnegligenceofthe
counsel deprives the client of due process of law. For the exception to apply, however, the gross negligence
shouldnotbeaccompaniedbytheclientsownnegligenceormalice,consideringthattheclienthasthedutytobe
vigilantinrespectofhisinterestsbykeepinghimselfuptodateonthestatusofthecase.Failinginthisduty,the
clientshouldsufferwhateveradversejudgmentisrenderedagainsthim.
Truly,alitigantbearstheresponsibilitytomonitorthestatusofhiscase,fornoprudentpartyleavesthefateofhis
caseentirelyinthehandsofhislawyer.Itistheclientsdutytobeincontactwithhislawyerfromtimetotimein
order to be informed of the progress and developments of his case hence, to merely rely on the bare
reassurancesofhislawyerthateverythingisbeingtakencareofisnotenough.14
It may not be amiss to add that this Court notes the propensity of petitioner and her counsel to disregard the
RulesanddirectivesoftheCourt.InaResolution15issuedbythisCourtonMarch14,2011,petitioner'scounsel
wasadmonishedforhisfailuretofilepetitioner'sReplytoCommentwhichwasrequiredinanearlierResolution
issuedbythisCourt.
Moreover,itisasettledrulethattherighttoappealisneitheranaturalrightnorapartofdueprocessitismerely
astatutoryprivilege,andmaybeexercisedonlyinthemannerandinaccordancewiththeprovisionoflaw.16An
appealbeingapurelystatutoryright,anappealingpartymuststrictlycomplywiththerequisiteslaiddowninthe
RulesofCourt.DeviationsfromtheRulescannotbetolerated.17Therationaleforthisstrictattitudeisnotdifficult
toappreciateastheRulesaredesignedtofacilitatetheorderlydispositionofappealedcases.18Inanagewhere
courtsarebedevilledbycloggeddockets,theRulesneedtobefollowedbyappellantswithgreaterfidelity.19Their
observance cannot be leftto the whims and caprices of appellants. In the instant case, petitioner remained
obstinateinhernonobservanceofthesaidRules.Suchobstinacyisincongruouswithherlatepleaforliberalityin
construingtheRules.Ontheabovebasisalone,theCourtfindsthattheinstantpetitionisdismissible.
Inanycase,eveniftheCourtbendsitsRulestoallowthepresentpetition,asitappearsthatpetitionerassailsnot
only the denial by the CA of her motion to admit her belated Motion for Reconsideration but likewise seeks the
reversalofherconvictionforillegalrecruitmentandestafa,theCourtstillfindsnocogentreasontodepartfrom
the assailed ruling of the CA. Indeed, after a careful and thorough review of the evidence on record, the Court
findsthatthelowercourtsdidnotcommitanyerrorinconvictingpetitionerofthecrimesofillegalrecruitmentand
estafa.
Atthispoint,itbearsreiteratingthatinapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,the
factualfindingsoftheRTC,especiallywhenaffirmedbytheCA,aregenerallyheldbindingandconclusiveonthe
Court.20Weemphasizethatwhilejurisprudencehasprovidedexceptions21tothisrule,thepetitionercarriesthe
burden of proving that one or more exceptional circumstances are present in the case.22 The petitioner must
additionallyshowthatthecitedexceptionalcircumstanceswillhaveabearingontheresultsofthecase.23Inthe
instantcase,theCourtfindsthatnoneoftheexceptionsarepresent.Thus,thereisnocogentreasontodepart
from the findings of both the RTC and the CA that petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
charged.
ThecrimeofillegalrecruitmentisdefinedunderSection6ofRA8042,otherwiseknownastheMigrantWorkers
andOverseasFilipinosActof1995,whichprovidesasfollows:
Sec.6.DEFINITIONS.ForpurposesofthisAct,illegalrecruitmentshallmeananyactofcanvassing,enlisting,
contracting,transporting,utilizing,hiring,procuringworkersandincludesreferring,contactservices,promisingor
advertisingforemploymentabroad,whetherforprofitornot,whenundertakenbyanonlicenseornonholderof
authoritycontemplatedunderArticle13(f)ofPresidentialDecreeNo.442,asamended,otherwiseknownasthe
Labor Code of the Philippines. Provided, that such nonlicense or nonholder, who, in any manner, offers or
promises for a fee employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise
include the following acts, whether committed by any persons, whether a nonlicensee, nonholder, licensee or
holderofauthority.
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that specified in the schedule of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190970_2014.html

3/7

9/3/2015

G.R.No.190970

allowablefeesprescribedbytheSecretaryofLaborandEmployment,ortomakeaworkerpayanyamount
greaterthanthatactuallyreceivedbyhimasaloanoradvance
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to recruitment or
employment
(c)Togiveanyfalsenotice,testimony,informationordocumentorcommitanyactofmisrepresentationfor
thepurposeofsecuringalicenseorauthorityundertheLaborCode
(d)Toinduceorattempttoinduceaworkeralreadyemployedtoquithisemploymentinordertoofferhim
another unless the transfer is designed to liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of
employment
(e)Toinfluenceorattempttoinfluenceanypersonsorentitynottoemployanyworkerwhohasnotapplied
foremploymentthroughhisagency
(f)Toengageintherecruitmentofplacementofworkersinjobsharmfultopublichealthormoralityorto
dignityoftheRepublicofthePhilippines
(g)ToobstructorattempttoobstructinspectionbytheSecretaryofLaborandEmploymentorbyhisduly
authorizedrepresentative
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement vacancies, remittances of foreign
exchange earnings, separations from jobs, departures and such other matters or information as may be
requiredbytheSecretaryofLaborandEmployment
(i)Tosubstituteoraltertotheprejudiceoftheworker,employmentcontractsapprovedandverifiedbythe
Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and
including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and
Employment
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become an officer or member of the
Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged directly orindirectly in the
managementofatravelagency
(k)Towithholdordenytraveldocumentsfromapplicantworkersbeforedepartureformonetaryorfinancial
considerations other than those authorized under the Labor Code and its implementing rules and
regulations
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reasons as determined by the Department of Labor and
Employmentand
(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in connection with his documentation and
processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place
without the worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be
consideredasoffenseinvolvingeconomicsabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiringorconfederatingwithoneanother.Itisdeemedcommittedinlargescaleifcommittedagainstthree(3)
ormorepersonsindividuallyorasagroup.
Thepersonscriminallyliablefortheaboveoffensesaretheprincipals,accomplicesandaccessories. Incaseof
juridicalpersons,theofficershavingcontrol,managementordirectionoftheirbusinessshallbeliable.24
1 w p h i1

Inthepresentcase,boththeRTCandtheCAfoundthattheprosecutionhasestablishedthatpetitionerandher
coaccusedcommittedtheactsenumeratedundertheprovisionsofSection6(a),(l)and(m)ofRA8042when:
(1)theyseparatelychargedtheprivatecomplainantstheamountsofP132,460.00,P120,000.00andP21,400.00
asplacementfees(2)theyfailedtoactuallydeploytheprivatecomplainantswithoutvalidreasons,and(3)they
failedtoreimbursethesaidcomplainantsaftersuchfailuretodeploy.
As to the charge of estafa, the act complained of in the instant case is penalized under Article 315, paragraph
2(a) of the RPC, wherein estafa is committed by any person who shall defraud another by false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. It is committed by using
fictitiousname,orbypretendingtopossesspower,influence,qualifications,property,credit,agency,businessor
imaginarytransactions,orbymeansofothersimilardeceits.Theelementsofestafabymeansofdeceitarethe
following, viz.: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions (b) that such false pretense or
fraudulentrepresentationwasmadeorexecutedpriortoorsimultaneouslywiththecommissionofthefraud(c)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190970_2014.html

4/7

9/3/2015

G.R.No.190970

thattheoffendedpartyreliedonthefalsepretense,fraudulentact,orfraudulentmeansandwasinducedtopart
withhismoneyorpropertyand(d)that,asaresultthereof,theoffendedpartysuffereddamage.25
Intheinstantcase,alltheforegoingelementsarepresent.Itwasprovenbeyondreasonabledoubt,asfoundby
theRTCandaffirmedbytheCA,thatpetitionerandhercoaccusedmisrepresentedandfalselypretendedthat
theyhadthecapacitytodeploytheprivatecomplainantsforemploymenteitherinSouthKorea,SaudiArabiaand
Canada. The misrepresentation was made prior toprivate complainants' payment of placement fees. It was the
misrepresentation and false pretenses made by petitioner and her coaccused that inducedthe private
complainants to part with their money. As a result of such false pretenses and misrepresentations, the private
complainants suffered damages as the promised employment abroad never materialized and the various
amountsofmoneytheypaidwereneverrecovered.Petitionerarguesthatshecouldnotbeheldliablebecause
she was not privy nor was she aware of the recruitment activities done by her coaccused. Petitioner avers that
when her coaccused received several amounts of money from the private complainants, she acted in her
personal capacity and for her own benefit without the knowledge and consent of petitioner. The Court is not
persuaded.Asownerandgeneralmanager,petitionerwasattheforefrontoftherecruitmentactivitiesofSuliman
International. Undoubtedly, she has control, manage mentor direction of the business of the said company.
Petitioner'sdenialisanintrinsicallyweakdefense,especiallyinthefaceofpositiveassertionsmadebytheprivate
complainantswhohadnoillmotivetofalselytestifyagainsther.Indeed,ofmarkedrelevanceistheabsenceof
anyshowingthattheprivatecomplainantshadanyillmotiveagainstpetitionerotherthantobringhertothebarof
justice to answer for the crime of illegal recruitment. Besides, for strangers to conspire and accuse another
stranger of a most serious crime just to mollify their hurt feelings would certainly be against human nature and
experience.26Wherethereisnothingtoshowthatthewitnessesfortheprosecutionwereactuatedbyimproper
motive,theirpositiveandcategoricaldeclarationsonthewitnessstandunderthesolemnityofanoathdeservefull
faith and credence.27 In any case, petitioner cannot deny participation in the recruitment of the private
complainants because the prosecution has established that petitioner was the one who offered the private
complainants an alleged alternative employment in Ireland when their original deployment did not materialize.
WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisDENIED.TheResolutionsoftheCourtofAppeals,datedJuly21,2009and
January8,2010inCAG.R.CRNo.30693,areAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO*
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

FRANCISH.JARDELEZA
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Chairperpon,ThirdDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190970_2014.html

5/7

9/3/2015

G.R.No.190970
*

DesignatedActingMemberinlieuofAssociateJusticeBienvenidoL.Reyes,perRaffledatedNovember
24,2014.
1

PennedbyAssociateJusticeIsaiasDicdican,withAssociateJusticesBienvenidoL.Reyes(nowamember
ofthisCourt)andMarleneGonzalesSison,concurringAnnex"A"toPetition,rollo,p.31.
2

Annex"B"toPetition,rollo,pp.3336.

Records,vol.I,pp.213.

PennedbyJudgeAmorA.Reyes.

Records,vol.II,pp.527528.

Id.at601611.

Id.at623625.

Rollo,pp.127128.

CArollo,p.192,(seereversepagewhichisnotnumbered).

10

Annex"C"toPetition,rollo,pp.3741.

11

Annex"D"toPetition,id.at100105.

12

Rollo,p.8.

13

G.R.No.159781,February2,2011,641SCRA328.

14

Bejarasco,Jr.v.People,supra,at330331.

15

Rollo,p.197.

16

Macapagalv.PeopleofthePhilippines,G.R.No.193217,February26,2014Fenequitov.Vergara,Jr.,
G.R.No.172829,July18,2012,677SCRA113.
17

Id.at117.

18

Id.

19

Id.

20

Magtirav.PeopleofthePhilippines,G.R.No.170964,March7,2012,667SCRA607,615.

21

Theyare:(1)whentheinferencemadeismanifestlymistaken,absurdorimpossible(2)whenthereis
grave abuse of discretion (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or
conjectures(4)whenthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisbasedonmisapprehensionoffacts(5)when
theCourtofAppeals,inmakingitsfindings,wentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseandthesameiscontraryto
theadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee(6)whenthefindingsoffactareconclusionswithoutcitation
ofspecificevidenceonwhichtheyarebased(7)whentheCourtofAppealsmanifestlyoverlookedcertain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion and (8) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of
evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. (Id. citing Dueas v. GuceAfrica, G.R. No.
165679,October5,2009,603SCRA11,2021.)
22

Magtirav.PeopleofthePhilippines,supranote20.

23

Id.

24

Emphasessupplied.

25

People v. Chua, G.R. No. 187052, September 13, 2012, 680 SCRA 575, 592 Sy v. People, G.R. No.
183879,April14,2010,618SCRA264,271.
26

Peoplev.Nogra,585Phil.712,724(2008).

27

Id.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/nov2014/gr_190970_2014.html

6/7