G.R. No. 253312 - Rodrigo Conche y Obilo vs. People

Rodrigo O. Conche was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in an Information dated December 18, 2009.
The case was heard by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 259, docketed as Criminal Case No. 09-1288.

Conche was represented by Gutierrez and Trinidad Law Office (GT Law Office).
The RTC convicted Conche by its Decision dated May 3, 2012.
Reconsideration was sought but denied on July 9, 2012.
Conche appealed, but the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction and penalty (life imprisonment and P500,000.00 fine) in a Decision dated September 21, 2015.
GT Law Office received the CA Decision on October 7, 2015 but failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration or appeal.

The CA decision became final and executory; Entry of Judgment issued October 23, 2015.
Conche and his wife Donna were under the impression that an appeal to the Supreme Court would be filed as promised by Atty. Evelyn Gutierrez of GT Law Office.
Upon receiving the Entry of Judgment, they sought assistance from BNG Humanitarian Outreach Volunteer Paralegal Services (BNG).
BNG Chairperson Calixto spoke with Atty. Gutierrez, who claimed an appeal was filed, but could not provide proof.
BNG confirmed no appeal or motion for reconsideration was filed by Atty. Gutierrez.
Various legal assistance attempts ensued including letters sent to the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), culminating in GT Law Office filing a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel on November 29, 2016.

Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) took over representation; filed Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and Notice of Appeal April 13, 2018.
PAO alleged gross negligence and misrepresentations by Atty. Gutierrez causing deprivation of Conche’s right to appeal and liberty.
The State (Office of the Solicitor General - OSG) opposed the motion, invoking the general rule that counsel’s negligence binds client and citing contributory negligence on Conche’s part.

Conche petitioned the Supreme Court seeking reversal of CA rulings.
He argued that Atty. Gutierrez was grossly negligent and made false promises to appeal his case to the Supreme Court.

Affidavits from Conche, wife Donna, and witnesses showed payments were made for legal representation and promises of appeal.
Atty. Gutierrez misrepresented to BNG Chairperson that an appeal was filed but failed to produce a Notice of Appeal.

Upon Issuance of Entry of Judgment, Conche and Donna promptly sought legal assistance.
Coordinated with BNG, OCJ, IBP, and PAO to revive appeal.
Delay in filing Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment attributed to procedural endorsements and thorough case study by PAO.

Substantive issues, including lapses in chain of custody under the law, possibly affecting trial proceedings.

Whether or not Conche’s right to appeal could be revived despite the finality of the judgment due to his counsel’s negligence.
Whether the negligence and misrepresentations of Atty. Gutierrez constitute an exception to the general rule that counsel’s neglect binds the client.
Whether Conche exhibited contributory negligence in losing his right to appeal.
Whether recalling the Entry of Judgment to allow appeal would violate principles of finality and orderly administration of justice.