The Supreme Court ruled that a client is bound by the negligence of their chosen counsel, except in cases of gross negligence that effectively deny due process. This decision underscores the importance of clients actively monitoring their legal cases and communicating with their attorneys. It also reinforces the principle that while everyone is entitled to competent legal representation, they also have a responsibility to stay informed and engaged in their defense. The court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, emphasizing that the petitioners were not denied due process despite their counsel’s alleged negligence, as they had opportunities to present evidence and participate in the proceedings.

From Public Trust to Personal Neglect: Can a Lawyer’s Inaction Undo a Graft Conviction?

This case revolves around Pedro G. Resurreccion, Joseph Cometa, and Criseforo Literato, Jr., former officials of Pilar, Surigao del Norte, who were convicted of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Resurreccion, the former Municipal Mayor, was also convicted of malversation of public funds. The convictions stemmed from irregularities in the disbursement of public funds for construction materials and unauthorized honoraria payments. The central legal question is whether the alleged negligence of their former counsel, Atty. Manuel Corpuz, in failing to inform them about the status of their case, warrants setting aside the conviction. The petitioners argued that Atty. Corpuz’s inaction deprived them of their right to present evidence, thus violating their right to due process.

The prosecution presented evidence indicating violations of auditing rules and regulations, including the lack of public bidding for procurement contracts and inadequate supporting documentation for disbursements. Auditor Uy’s COA report detailed these irregularities, which included instances where purchases were made from unlicensed suppliers and quantities procured exceeded programmed amounts. The municipality also reimbursed Mayor Resurreccion for a donation to a religious organization, an action deemed a violation of constitutional and statutory provisions. Furthermore, unauthorized payrolls for honoraria were disbursed without proper approval, contravening government accounting guidelines. The Sandiganbayan found that these actions constituted manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and unwarranted benefits to private parties, resulting in undue injury to the government.

The petitioners, in their defense, attributed their failure to present evidence to their former counsel’s negligence. They argued that Atty. Corpuz’s failure to communicate with them for nearly three years constituted gross negligence, effectively denying them due process. However, the Supreme Court found this argument unpersuasive. The court reiterated the established principle that a client is bound by the actions of their counsel. This principle is rooted in the idea that a retained counsel has the implied authority to act on behalf of their client, and any act or omission within the scope of that authority is attributed to the client.

The Court, citing Legarda v. Court of Appeals, emphasized that only in cases involving gross or palpable negligence of the counsel, or when the application of the general rule amounts to an outright deprivation of one’s property or liberty through technicality, relief is accorded to a client. Gross negligence, in this context, must amount to a clear abandonment of the client’s cause. The Court, referencing Multi-Trans Agency Phils., Inc. v. Oriental Assurance Corp., stated that for a claim of a counsel’s gross negligence to prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the client’s cause must be shown.

The Supreme Court examined the records and found that Atty. Corpuz’s actions did not amount to gross negligence. While he may have failed to communicate with the petitioners for an extended period, he was present throughout the prosecution’s presentation of evidence, filed pleadings on their behalf, and actively participated in the proceedings. The Court noted that the postponements of hearings were not solely attributable to Atty. Corpuz, and the petitioners had executed written waivers of appearance during the prosecution’s presentation of evidence. These actions indicated that Atty. Corpuz did not abandon the petitioners’ case, and his alleged negligence, if any, was merely simple negligence, not gross negligence.

The Court further emphasized the responsibility of clients to monitor their cases and communicate with their counsel. Citing Bejarasco, Jr. v. People, the Court stated that a litigant bears the responsibility to monitor the status of his case, for no prudent party leaves the fate of his case entirely in the hands of his lawyer. The petitioners’ failure to inquire about the status of their case and to actively participate in their defense contributed to their predicament. Diligence is required not only from lawyers but also from their clients, stated the Court, reinforcing the principle that clients cannot simply delegate all responsibility to their counsel and later blame them for adverse outcomes.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not deprived of due process. They were given ample opportunity to present evidence and participate in the proceedings. Their counsel filed pleadings, attended hearings, and actively represented their interests. Due process, as the Court emphasized, citing Ray Peter O. Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Given these circumstances, the petitioners could not claim a denial of due process.

The Court also addressed the issue of the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration due to the lack of a proper notice of hearing. The Rules of Court require that every written motion be set for hearing by the movant, and the notice of hearing must specify the time and date of the hearing. Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly outlines these requirements. A motion that does not meet these requirements is considered pro forma and has no legal effect.

The Supreme Court found that the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration lacked the essential elements of a proper notice of hearing. The notification only requested the submission of the motion for consideration and approval, without specifying the time, date, and place of the hearing. This deficiency rendered the motion pro forma and properly dismissible by the Sandiganbayan. In this regard, the court also cited Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Batu Const. and Co., et al where it stated that unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing[,] the court would have no way to determine whether that party agrees to or objects to the motion, and if he objects, to hear him on his objection, since the Rules themselves do not fix any period within which he may file his reply or opposition.

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the alleged negligence of the petitioners’ former counsel, in failing to inform them about the status of their case, was a valid ground to set aside their conviction.
What is the general rule regarding the negligence of counsel?	The general rule is that a client is bound by the negligence and mistakes of their chosen counsel, except in cases of gross negligence that effectively deny due process.
What constitutes gross negligence of counsel?	Gross negligence of counsel must amount to a clear abandonment of the client’s cause, not a mere error in judgment or simple negligence.
What is the client’s responsibility in a legal case?	Clients have a responsibility to monitor the status of their case, communicate with their counsel, and actively participate in their defense, rather than solely relying on their attorney.
What is the requirement for a notice of hearing in a motion for reconsideration?	A notice of hearing must specify the time, date, and place of the hearing, and it must be served to all parties at least three days before the hearing.
What happens if a motion for reconsideration lacks a proper notice of hearing?	A motion for reconsideration that lacks a proper notice of hearing is considered pro forma and has no legal effect, and the court may properly dismiss it.
What does “due process” mean in this context?	“Due process” simply means that the parties are given an opportunity to be heard, to explain their side, or to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
What was the final ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, finding that the petitioners were not denied due process and that their counsel’s actions did not amount to gross negligence.

This case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between the right to competent legal representation and the responsibility of clients to actively engage in their legal defense. While attorneys are expected to diligently represent their clients, clients must also take ownership of their cases by staying informed and communicating with their counsel. Neglecting this responsibility can have severe consequences, as demonstrated by the affirmation of the petitioners’ conviction.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Pedro G. Resurreccion, et al. vs. People, G.R. No. 192866, July 9, 2014