G.R. No. 153414 ; June 27, 2006
VICTORIA G. CALLANGAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Victoria G. Callangan was convicted of perjury by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Pasig. She filed a timely motion for new trial, alleging she was deprived of her day in court due to the gross negligence of her counsel, Atty. Ricardo C. Valmonte. She cited his failure to file a demurrer to evidence despite leave, failure to inform her of court orders, failure to attend the hearing for her defense evidence (deemed a waiver), and failure to appear at the promulgation. The MTC denied the motion, ruling the ground invoked was not among those provided in the Rules for new trial in criminal cases.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), assailing the MTC orders. The RTC dismissed the petition, holding that the remedy of appeal was still available and that the MTC committed no grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not appeal, is the proper remedy from the denial of a motion for new trial; and (2) whether the MTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying said motion.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. On the procedural issue, the Court ruled that an order denying a motion for new trial is not appealable. The proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, a principle applicable to both civil and criminal cases. Thus, petitioner’s resort to Rule 65 before the RTC was correct.
On the substantive issue, the Court found that while the MTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its denial, the gross negligence of petitioner’s counsel warranted equitable relief. The rule that negligence of counsel binds the client admits of exceptions, including when such negligence deprives the client of due process or would result in outright deprivation of liberty. Here, counsel’s chronic inaction and abandonment of the case constituted gross negligence, effectively leaving petitioner without legal assistance during critical stages. This violated her immutable right to counsel, a core component of due process in criminal cases. To prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Court set aside the assailed orders and remanded the case to the MTC for a new trial to allow petitioner to present her defense.