Mapagay v.

People
Facts: This is a case for petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Erlinda Mapagay (petitioner) seeks for the reversal decision of the Court of appeals
which affirmed the decision of the Regional trial Court finding her guilty of violation
of BP22.
The petitioner issued a check amounting to 40,000 pesos to private respondent
Dated nov 20 1996. The said petitioner knowing at the time of the issue did not
have sufficient funds or credit with the bank. the reason was that the account was
already closed. The petitioner failed to pay said payee for the said amount and to
make full arrangement for full payement within 5 banking days after receiving such
notice.
Petioner and Relindia Dela Cruz (complainant) had an amicable settlement on june
30 1999. But due to the fact that petitioner did not comply with the agreements the
case was revived. Private complainant said that petitioner borrowed money from
her in novemeber 1996. Petitioner issued a check for the loan and promised to
replace it with cash. Upon failure to give cash and despite repeated demands, the
complainant presented the check in the bank. the bank dishonored the check for
the account was closed. Petiotioner was held guilty beyond resonable doubt by the
rtc. After which the counsel moved to file for appeal in the CA. Bu the Court of
appeals denied the appeal since according to CA it was filed out of time and that the
RTC decision was already final and unalterable.
Issue: w/n the CA erred in denying due course to her appeal.
Held: The Court said that once a judgement attains finality it becomes immutable
and unalterable. Evidences shows that the counsed of the petitioner received the
copy of the decision on 21 september 2004 however the counsel filed an appeal on
november 2004. This was obviously way beyond the reglementary period. It is
settled that the omission or neligence of the counsel binds the client. This is more
true that if the client did not make any efforts to check the progress of her case.
Petioner also argues that the technical rules should relax in the interest of
substantial justice so as to afford her opportunity to the present case. (doctrine of
liberal construction) court said this is not automatically so. Like all rules they must
be followed except for the most indispensable and persuasive reasons only. Sc finds
no error in the decision of the cs in dismissing the case.