G.R. No. 173390 - Lagua vs. Court of Appeals

On 11 April 2003, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig rendered a decision in Criminal Case Nos. 118032-H and 118033-H.

The accused, Melchor L. Lagua (petitioner), was found guilty of homicide.
He was sentenced to suffer 8 years of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum in each case.

On 19 May 2003, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 27423.
On 18 June 2003, petitioner filed a Very Urgent Petition for Bail Pending Appeal, which the CA granted without objection from the Office of the Solicitor General.
On 6 November 2003, an Order of Release upon bond was issued in his favor by the Division Clerk of Court of the CA.

On 14 October 2003, the CA issued an order requiring petitioner to file his Appellantas Brief within 45 days (until 28 November 2003).
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Extension of another 45 days from 28 November 2003, extending the period to 12 January 2004.
On 8 January 2004, a second Motion for Extension was filed asking for an additional 45 days; the CA granted this extension with a warning that no further extension would be allowed.
Consequently, petitioner had until 26 February 2004 to file the brief, yet he failed to do so despite the granted extensions.

On 5 May 2004, the CA issued a Show Cause Order directing petitioner, through counsel, to explain within five days why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioner failed again to submit his appellate brief within the prescribed period.

On 1 September 2004, the CA issued a Resolution declaring the appeal abandoned and accordingly dismissed.
On 14 October 2004, petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Salvador Quimpo, manifested his withdrawal as defense counsel; however, he admitted failure to secure petitioner’s conformity regarding his withdrawal.
On the following day, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 1 September 2004 Resolution, requesting more time to secure new counsel.

On 20 October 2004, the Solicitor General moved for petitioner’s immediate arrest and confinement at the New Bilibid Prison, arguing that abandonment rendered the judgment of conviction final and executory.
On 9 February 2005, the CA’s Resolution stated that even though it had not received a formal Notice of Withdrawal from Atty. Quimpo, it granted a 30-day period for petitioner and his new counsel to file a Notice of Appearance.

On 8 July 2005, the CA issued another Show Cause Order, directing petitioner to explain within 10 days why his new counsel had not appeared and why the appeal should not be considered abandoned.
Instead of a timely compliance, petitioner's new counsel, Atty. Emerson Barrientos, filed a Notice of Appearance on 8 March 2005—almost a month after the Show Cause Order.
On 17 August 2005, the CA treated the Notice of Appearance as sufficient compliance with the 8 July 2005 Order, granted the Motion for Reconsideration, set aside the earlier dismissal of 1 September 2004, and imposed a non-extendible period of 30 days within which the brief must be filed.
Petitioner still failed to file his Appellantas Brief within this additional period, leading to:

The CA issuing the first assailed Resolution on 25 November 2005, which for the second time declared his appeal abandoned.

On 19 December 2005, petitioner filed another Motion for Reconsideration with a Motion to Admit the Appellantas Brief, although this was submitted 18 days after his counsel received the 25 November 2005 Resolution.
On 17 May 2006, the CA issued its second assailed Resolution denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and ordering the Appellantas Brief to be expunged from the record.
Throughout the entire process, petitioner justified his inaction by alleging that his counsel’s negligence and errors caused a two-year delay in filing the Appellantas Brief.

Petitioner eventually brought the case before the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.
He argued that the negligence of his counsel should not incur prejudice against reconsideration and that his appeal should be reinstated because it would not harm the People and could lead to his acquittal.
The Supreme Court, however, noted that the CA had acted within its authority under Rule 124 and that petitioner’s repeated failures—even after numerous extensions and liberal reliefs—constituted a willful neglect of procedural duties.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioner’s appeal as abandoned.

The petitioner contended that the repeated failures were due to counsel’s negligence.
Whether petitioner's excuses, pointing to counsel’s errors, could warrant reopening the appeal despite the noncompliance with procedural requirements.

Whether the CA properly exercised its authority under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court in imposing strict compliance periods for filing the Appellantas Brief.
Whether a client's inexcusable delay and failure to follow up on the status of his case can justify relief via extraordinary certiorari under Rule 65.
Whether the petitioner's allegations of grave abuse of discretion were sufficient to relax or disregard the binding procedural rules governing the timely submission of appellate briefs.