G.R. No. 202280 - Dimaandal vs. Ilagan

On May 20, 2009, at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Taal-San Nicolas, Batangas, Carlos Dimaandal was convicted of the crime of resistance and disobedience to an agent of a person in authority under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code.
The conviction resulted in a sentence of three (3) months imprisonment and a fine of One Hundred and Fifty Pesos (P150.00).

On the same day the conviction was rendered, a copy of the decision was received by Dimaandal’s then-counsel, Atty. Josephine A. Concepcion.
On June 4, 2009, Dimaandal, through Atty. Concepcion, filed a motion for reconsideration which was later denied on July 9, 2009.
Following the motion’s denial, a notice of appeal was filed on July 17, 2009 by Atty. Concepcion under the “fresh period rule,” asserting that Dimaandal had fifteen (15) days from July 13, 2009 (the receipt date of the July 9 decision) to perfect his appeal.
The MCTC denied the notice of appeal for being filed out of time and declared the May 20, 2009 decision final and executory; subsequently, a warrant of arrest was issued for Dimaandal.

Atty. Concepcion filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to question the MCTC’s dismissal of the appeal.
On November 20, 2009, the RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit, holding that Dimaandal had lost his right to appeal by failing to file his notice of appeal in time.
A subsequent order dated February 24, 2010, also denied the motion for reconsideration.

A petition for review on certiorari was filed before the Court of Appeals by Atty. Concepcion seeking to nullify the RTC’s November 20, 2009 decision and the February 24, 2010 order.
In its August 31, 2011 decision, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling, noting that the motion for reconsideration did not toll the running of the appellate period, thus rendering the notice of appeal untimely.
The CA emphasized that the appropriate remedy for the dismissal should have been an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, not a petition for review under Rule 42.

With new counsel, Atty. Bernardo C. Cabidoy, Dimaandal moved for reconsideration before the CA, raising for the first time the issue of his former counsel’s alleged gross negligence—specifically, the filing of a prohibited pleading and failure to file the notice of appeal within the reglementary period.
The CA denied this motion for reconsideration on May 29, 2012, for lack of merit.
On August 3, 2012, Dimaandal filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s decisions.
In his petition, Dimaandal admitted the correctness of the CA’s finding regarding the untimely filing of the appeal but argued that he should not be bound by the procedural lapses (negligence) of his former counsel, alleging a violation of his right to due process.

Whether the foregoing petition for review on certiorari should be granted considering that Dimaandal’s appeal was filed out of time.

Whether the argument that the negligence of his former counsel (i.e., the filing of a prohibited pleading and the belated notice of appeal) deprives Dimaandal of his right to due process has merit.
Whether the issue of counsel’s gross negligence, raised for the first time in the motion for reconsideration before the CA, is ripe for adjudication at this stage under the rule against raising new issues on appeal.