Romina M. Suarez, petitioner, vs.

The Court of
Appeals, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch LXI, Angeles City, respondents.
GR No. 91133, March 22, 1993.
Germaine Suzette C. Austero
Case No. 188 - PALE

FACTS:

On May 7, 1985, petitioner Suarez was charged in two cases in violation of BP 22, which
cases were consolidated for trial and decision in the RTC. At the arraignment, the petitioner
pleaded not guilty to all the information against her. She then posted bail in all the cases
and was granted provisional liberty.

At the trial, the petitioner did not appear in court despite notices sent to her residence as
appearing on the record and to her bondsmen. Her counsel de parte, Atty. Vicente San Luis
appeared on her behalf during the time the prosecution was presenting its evidence up to
when it was the turn of the defense to present its evidence. However, the hearing was
postponed because of the absence of the private prosecutor. The said hearing was
postponed and rescheduled twice. On November 19, 1987, the continuation of the hearing
was set and it was Atty. Buen Zamar who entered a special appearance for Atty San Luis as
counsel for the accused without the consent of the petitioner. From the said date, Atty. San
Luis did not appear in court as he had left for the US and has not returned since then,
without informing the petitioner or withdrawing his appearance.

On January 6, 1988, the trial court issued an order forfeiting in favor of the government the
bonds posted by the petitioner. On May 17, 1988, the trial court issued a notice setting the
promulgation of its decision and the said notice was sent to Atty. San Luis and the
petitioner’s bondsmen. On May 31, 1988, the criminal case was called for promulgation of
judgment. The trial court appointed Atty Panlilio as counsel de oficio to represent the
absent petitioner. The judgment of conviction was promulgated by the reading of the
decision in open court.

On June 29, 1988, the promulgation of the joint judgment of conviction of the petitioner in
the criminal cases was made and the petitioner was represented by Atty. Buen Zamar at
the reading of the sentence.

On December 31, 1988, the petitioner was arrested and detained.

1
On February 6, 1989, the petitioner, now represent by a new counsel de parte file three
motions, namely: (1) for temporary release as she was pregnant and allegedly suffering
from a heart ailment; (2) to set aside the promulgation of judgment; and (3) to re-open the
trial.

The RTC denied the motions to set aside the judgment and to re-open the trial. The petition
was referred to the Court of Appeals and the CA dismissed the petition. Hence, the instant
petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

WON the CA erred in holding the no sufficient grounds exist to warrant the re-opening of
the joint trial in connection to WON the petitioner was denied her day in court. (YES and
YES)

RULING:

The legal difficulty the petitioner finds herself in is imputable to the negligence of Atty San
Luis in abandoning the conduct of the case without formally withdrawing or at least
informing the petitioner that he would be permanently staying in the US so that the
petitioner could appoint another counsel.

A lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client. He owes his client full devotion to
his genuine interests, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, and the
exertion of his utmost learning and ability.

As a general rule, a client is bound by his counsel’s conduct, negligence, and mistakes in
handling the case during the trial. However, as an exception, a new trial may be granted
where the incompetence of counsel is so great that the defendant is prejudiced and
prevented from fairly representing his defense.

Clearly, the petitioner was deprived of her right to present and prove her defense due to
the negligence of her counsel. The appearance of a certain Atty Buen Zamar is of no
moment as there was no client-attorney relationship between him and the petitioner who
did not engage his services to represent her in the said cases.

Therefore, the Court ruled that the petitioner was deprived of due process of law and
likewise directed the trial court to reopen the consolidated criminal cases for the reception
of evidence for the defense.