Rodrigo Conche v.

People
G.R. No. 253312, 01 March 2023
Gaerlan, J.

FACTS:

Conche was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The case was
heard by the Regional Trial Court (“RTC”) Parañaque City. Conche was represented by
counsel de parte, Gutierrez and Trinidad Law Office (GT Law Office). Conche after being
convicted of the said crime sought reconsideration but was denied. He appealed but his
conviction was sustained by the Court of Appeals (“CA”) and affirmed his penalty. GT Law
Office received a copy of the Decision on 7 October 2015 but did not timely file a motion for
reconsideration or appeal. The Decision therefore became final and executory, and an Entry of
Judgment was issued on 23 October 2015. According to Conche's wife, Donna May L. Conche
(“Donna”), Atty. Evelyn Gutierrez (“Atty. Gutierrez”) from GT Law Office promised them that
an appeal would be filed to elevate the case to this Court. She and her husband were thus
surprised when they received the Entry of Judgment informing them that the conviction had
become final and executory.

After being informed of the Entry of Judgment, they immediately sought legal assistance
from BNG Humanitarian Outreach Volunteer Paralegal Services (“BNG”) to verify the status of
their appeal. BNG Chairperson Calixto G. Ballesteros, Jr. (“BNG Chairperson Calixto”) was able
to speak with Atty. Gutierrez who informed him that she appealed Conche's case. However, she
could not provide a copy of the Notice of Appeal when requested for it. BNG was able to
confirm that Atty. Gutierrez did not appeal Conche's case. It obtained the Letter dated 15 July
2016 from the CA certifying that Atty. Gutierrez did not file any appeal or motion for
reconsideration of its Decision dated 21 September 2015.

In desperation, Conche, through BNG, sent a Letters to the Office of the Chief Justice
(“OCJ”), and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”) to plead for assistance on how to
elevate his appeal to the Supreme Court. The OCJ issued a letter instructing the Division Clerk
of Court of the CA Fourth Division to take the appropriate action on Conche's case. On August
16, 2017, the OCJ sent another Letter to the PAO endorsing Conche's case. PAO entered its
appearance as Conche's counsel and filed a Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and Notice of
Appeal with the CA. It asserted that Atty. Gutierrez was guilty of gross negligence and
misrepresentations while handling Conche's case which resulted in the loss of his right to
appeal and deprivation of liberty. This allegedly constituted an exception to the general rule
that the negligence of counsel binds the client. It asked the CA to set aside the Entry of
Judgment to rectify a serious injustice and protect Conche's right to due process. The CA issued
a Resolution denying Conche's Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and Notice of Appeal. It
held that there were no compelling reasons to apply the exception to the rule that the
negligence of counsel binds the client. Conche sought reconsideration but was also denied by
the CA.

ISSUE:
Should Conche’s Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and Notice of Appeal be granted
on the ground that his right to due process was denied, due to his counsel’s gross negligence for
failing to timely file an appeal?

RULING:

Yes. It is a well-settled doctrine that final and executory judgments are immutable and
unalterable. This is grounded on the fundamental considerations of public policy and sound
practice, and is required for the orderly administration of justice. It is likewise established that
the negligence of counsel binds the client, even for errors in the application of procedural rules.
The reason for this rule is that counsel, once retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts
necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his
client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded, in
the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself.

However, this rule is not absolute. This Court has recognized the following exceptions when the
client will not be bound by counsel's negligence: (1) when the reckless or gross negligence of
counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its application will result in the
outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so
require. It was emphasized that in these cases, the courts must intervene to accord relief to a
party-litigant.

In Hilario v. People, the counsel defied the accused's explicit instructions to file an appeal
which resulted in his conviction becoming final and executory. It was held that the accused
cannot be bound by his counsel's gross negligence and that the deprivation of his right to
appeal amounted to a denial of his right to due process. It was stressed in Hilario that the right
to appeal, although merely statutory, is an essential part of our judicial system and must, as
much as possible, be afforded to every party.

Verily, the accused's right to be heard by himself/herself and counsel is critical to

protecting the right to due process. The right to be heard by himself/herself and counsel is
explicitly provided in Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and has been
interpreted to mean that the accused should be provided with assistance by "effective" counsel.
The determination of what is considered sufficiently "effective" counsel is guided by relevant
provisions of the Rules of Court, the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), and the Canons
of Professional Ethics.

In this regard, Canon 17 of the CPR notably provides that a lawyer must owe fidelity to
the cause of his/her client and should be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him/her. It is further mandated under Canon 18 that a lawyer should serve his/her client with
competence and diligence.

Applying the foregoing to this case, We rule that Conche's right to due process was
denied which warrants a reversal of the assailed CA rulings.

Conche claimed that when he learned that the CA upheld his conviction, Atty. Gutierrez
promised him that she would file a notice of appeal to elevate his case to this Court.
Regrettably, Atty. Gutierrez did not fulfill her promise which resulted in his conviction
becoming final and executory.

Conche relied heavily on Atty. Gutierrez's promise that his conviction would be
appealed. Given the circumstances of this case, he cannot be faulted for believing in her
misrepresentations. For one, he was a paying client of Atty. Gutierrez who handled his case
during both the trial stage and his appeal to the CA. Donna in her Affidavit enumerated the
payments she made to Atty. Gutierrez for this purpose. The actions of Conche and Donna
immediately after learning about the Entry of Judgment supports the fact that they lost the
opportunity to appeal solely because of Atty. Gutierrez's misrepresentations and gross
negligence. The CA erred in ruling that Conche was guilty of contributory negligence for the
loss of his right to appeal. On the contrary, Conche was very diligent in trying to exhaust all
available remedies within his limited means to revive his appeal.

All told, in view of the facts of this specific case, Conche's right to appeal was denied
because of Atty. Gutierrez's gross negligence and misrepresentations. He was not guilty of
contributory negligence for the loss of his right to appeal. The manner by which Atty. Gutierrez
handled his case deprived him of his right to be assisted by "effective" counsel. This Court must
therefore intervene to protect and prevent the violation of his Constitutional right to be heard
by himself and counsel.