Case Summary (G.R. No. 45517)
Procedural History
Rodrigo Conche was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and was ultimately convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Parañaque City. Following his conviction on May 3, 2012, Conche filed for reconsideration, which was denied. His appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was also dismissed on September 21, 2015, sustaining the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. The CA's decision became final when GT Law Office, representing Conche, failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration or appeal.
Misrepresentation and Negligence
After learning of the Entry of Judgment, Conche and his wife, Donna, sought assistance from BNG Humanitarian Outreach Volunteer Paralegal Services (BNG) to verify the status of an appeal. They discovered that Atty. Gutierrez, their attorney from GT Law Office, had misrepresented the status of their appeal, stating it had been filed when it had not. BNG confirmed with the CA that no appeal or motion for reconsideration was submitted by Atty. Gutierrez.
Attempts to Rectify the Situation
In light of these revelations, Conche, through BNG, made several attempts to request assistance from the Office of the Chief Justice and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to elevate his appeal. Concurrently, BNG facilitated the withdrawal of Atty. Gutierrez’s representation, allowing the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) to take over the case. The PAO ultimately filed a Motion to Recall the Entry of Judgment, asserting that Atty. Gutierrez's gross negligence and misrepresentations caused Conche to lose his right to appeal.
Court of Appeals Rulings
The CA denied the PAO’s motion to recall the entry of judgment in its Resolution dated January 18, 2019, and reiterated this denial in another resolution dated August 20, 2020. The CA upheld the principle that a client is bound by the negligence of their counsel, asserting that Conche contributed to the delay by not promptly following up with Atty. Gutierrez.
Supreme Court's Analysis
Upon review, the Supreme Court acknowledged the well-established doctrine that judgments once final are immutable and the negligence of counsel generally binds clients. However, the Court recognized exceptions, particularly when the client's due process rights are violated, which applies to Conche's case. The Court found that Atty. Gutierrez’s actions amounted to gross negligence and misrepresentations that effectively denied Conche his right to appeal.
Conclusion and Intervention
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Conche, granting his petition, and recalling the Entry of Judgment to allow for an opp
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 45517)
Background and Procedural History
- Rodrigo O. Conche was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
- The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 09-1288 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 259.
- Conche was represented by Gutierrez and Trinidad Law Office (GT Law Office).
- The RTC convicted Conche on May 3, 2012; motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction and penalty (life imprisonment and P500,000 fine) on September 21, 2015.
- GT Law Office received the CA Decision but failed to file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal, rendering the decision final and executory with Entry of Judgment issued October 23, 2015.
Discovery of Counsel's Non-Action and Subsequent Legal Steps
- Conche and his wife, Donna May L. Conche, were misled by Atty. Evelyn Gutierrez who promised to file an appeal to the Supreme Court but did not do so.
- Upon receiving the Entry of Judgment, they sought help from BNG Humanitarian Outreach Volunteer Paralegal Services (BNG).
- BNG Chairperson Calixto G. Ballesteros, Jr. confirmed with Atty. Gutierrez that she allegedly appealed the case but could not produce a Notice of Appeal.
- A certification from the CA dated July 15, 2016 confirmed no appeal or motion for reconsideration was filed by Atty. Gutierrez.
Efforts to Seek Assistance and Remedies
- Letters were sent to the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) pleading for assistance to elevate the appeal.
- The OCJ instructed the CA Clerk and referred the case to the IBP for possible legal assistance.
- IBP National Center for Legal Aid evaluated the case and referred it to its local chapter.
- GT Law Office was requested to formally withdraw so the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) could take over; Atty. Gutierrez filed a Motion to Withdraw on November 29, 2016.
- The OCJ endorsed the case to the PAO that later filed a Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and Notice of Appeal in Apri