70.

SALVADOR
Due Process: In General
Hilario v. People

Facts: The RTC Decision, finding Hilario guilty of two counts of homicide. The counsel's withdrawal
of appearance was considered by the CA as relevant and pertinent to the petition for certiorari, thus it
dismissed the petition for failure to attach the same. However, the CA failed to consider the fact that
the petition before it was filed by petitioner, detained prisoner, without the benefit of a counsel.

Issue: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition knowing that it was filed without the benefit of
a counsel.

Ruling: YES. The court ruled that a litigant who is not a lawyer is not expected to know the rules of
procedure. In criminal cases, the right of an accused person to be assisted by a member of a bar is
immutable. Otherwise, there would be grave denial of due process. Thus, even if the judgement had
become final and executory, it may still be recalled, and the accused afforded the opportunity to be
heard by himself and counsel.

Main point: The right to counsel in civil cases exists just as forcefully as in criminal cases, specially
so when as a consequence, life, liberty or property is subjected to restraint or danger of loss. Thus, it
is absolute and may always be invoked.

71. SALVADOR
Due Process: In General
Pasiona v. CA

Facts: The CA's decision became final and executory since there was no motion for reconsideration
was filed by either party. Petitioner asserts that he should be allowed to avail of the remedy of
certiorari because he was denied due process due to the recklessness and gross negligence of his
former counsel and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to him in the
ordinary course of law.

Issue: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition.

Ruling: NO. The Court ruled that there was no denial of due process despite the failure of the lawyer
to file a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's order declaring is client to have waived the right
to present evidence. It was held that the party had the opportunity to be heard when he assailed the
trial court's decision through an appeal to the CA. The party was not considered to have been
deprived of due process of law even if he had not been able to present evidence in his behalf and the
trial court's decision was based only on the evidence presented by the opposing party.

Main point: The court upheld the principle that a client is bound by the action or mistakes of his
counsel, the only exception being, when such counsel's negligence is so gross and palpable resulting
in the denial of due process to his client.
 72. SALVADOR
Due Process: In General
Bibas v. OMB

Facts: Ombudsman upon motion for reconsideration of COA modified its motion and the petitioner's
motion for reconsideration of this Order was denied by the Ombudsman. Petitioner thereupon filed a
petition for certiorari with the CA which was dismissed outright on procedural grounds, namely, an
original action for certiorari was the wrong remedy, the proper remedy being appeal.

Issue: Whether the dismissal of the petition by strictly applying procedural rules is meritorious.

Ruling: YES. The court ruled that that it would hardly make much sense to allow a late or improperly
filed appeal and disregard the rule on the binding effect of counsel's negligence when it is evident that
a party is, at all events, unable to present a convincing case on the merits. In such instances, allowing
the appeal to run its course would be a mere waste of time, both for the parties and the appellate
court.

Main point: The determining factor to a relaxation of the rules is when a case is meritorious on its
face.