A.M. No. 23-04-05-SC - Re: Illegal Campaign and Activities in Integrated Bar of the Philippines a Central Luzon Allegedly Perpetrated by Atty. Nilo Divina

Petitioners Pedro and Angelina Telan (hereinafter Petitioners) are spouses. Pedro is a retired government employee and high school graduate.
In 1973, Petitioners settled on a property abutting the national highway in Guibang, Gamu, Isabela.
In 1977, the government required the land, compelling Petitioners to relocate to a 750-square-meter lot owned by Luciano Sia, rented at ₱50.00 per month, situated en route to the Our Lady of Guibang shrine.
Petitioners established a vulcanizing shop and an eatery. Their cousins, private respondents Roberto Telan and spouses Vicente and Virginia Telan, subsequently set up an eatery on the same lot.

On March 27, 1984, Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) served Petitioners a Notice to Vacate, followed by a letter from Virginia Telan. Vicente and Virginia had executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage over Sia’s lot.
DBP foreclosed the mortgage. On June 7, 1984, DBP and spouses Vicente and Virginia sued Petitioners for eviction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ilagan, Isabela; the case was dismissed.
On September 22, 1986, Roberto Telan secured a Transfer Certificate of Title over the contested lot and, together with spouses Vicente and Virginia, filed an Accion Publiciana against Petitioners.

Petitioners initially retained Atty. Antonio Paguiran to defend the Accion Publiciana. On October 27, 1988, the RTC awarded possession to Roberto and spouses. Paguiran declined to appeal.
Angelina Telan engaged one “Ernesto Palma,” who represented himself as a lawyer, to handle the appeal and paid him legal fees.
Petitioners did not receive any notices of appeal briefing deadlines and were unaware of the progress of their appeal.

Pedro Telan suffered a fractured femoral neck on August 5, 1988, was hospitalized from September 5 to October 2, 1988, underwent two operations, and remained under medical care until January 1990.
On July 14, 1989, the Court of Appeals (CA) required appellants’ brief within 45 days. No brief was filed. On October 20, 1989, the CA issued a show-cause order.
On December 28, 1989, CA dismissed the appeal for failure to file a brief. The resolution became final on January 24, 1990, and was entered on May 24, 1990.
Petitioners only learned of the dismissal in May 1990. “Atty. Palma” had disappeared. Petitioners engaged new counsel, Atty. Peter Donnely A. Barot, who filed a motion for reconsideration with an attached brief and instituted estafa charges against Palma.
On September 12, 1990, the RTC issued a Writ of Demolition to enforce the CA decision. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court on October 18, 1990, requesting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). On October 24, 1990, this Court issued the TRO.

Whether Petitioners’ representation by a fake lawyer amounts to a deprivation of their right to counsel.
Whether such deprivation constitutes a denial of due process warranting reinstatement of their appeal.