Case Digest (G.R. No. 191972)
Facts:
Henry Ong Lay Hin v. Court of Appeals (2nd Division), G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin (Ong) was criminally tried by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, Cebu City, for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code. In a Decision dated February 8, 2000, the RTC found Ong and co-accused Leo Obsioma, Jr. liable for failing to pay Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company the amount covered by their trust receipt agreement and imposed an indeterminate sentence (minimum prision correccional to maximum reclusion temporal). Ong filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied on March 31, 2000, and then filed a Notice of Appeal; the trial court transmitted the records to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a Decision dated November 29, 2001, the Court of Appeals (Second Division) affirmed the RTC in toto. The CA denied Ong’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 14, 2003. The CA subsequently issued an Entry of Judgment declaring the decision final and executory as of May 15, 2003, based on a registry return card showing that Ong’s former counsel, Zosa & Quijano Law Offices, received a copy of the CA Resolution on April 29, 2003.
The trial court received the original records, the CA Decision, and the CA Entry of Judgment on March 22, 2004, and ordered Ong’s arrest. Ong was arrested on February 12, 2010 in Pasay City, initially committed to the Cebu City Jail and later to New Bilibid Prison. On May 6, 2010, Ong filed a petition with the Supreme Court for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with an application for preliminary and/or mandatory injunction, arguing that the CA Resolution never became final and executory because his counsel never received a copy, and alternatively that his counsel’s gross negligence deprived him of due process.
The People of the Philippines answered, asserting the presumption of regularity and accuracy of the registry return card and arguing that counsel’s negligence binds the client unless it is so gross as to have deprived the client of due process. The Supreme Court ordered respond...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the Entry of Judgment declaring the judgment final and executory?
- Did the trial court gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest and commitment order against petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin?
- Was petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin’s former counsel grossly negligent so as to depr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)