GR 135378; (June, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135378 ; June 23, 2005
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ANGELITO AMBROSIO, ROMAN OZAETA III and WARREN QUE, respondents.
FACTS
The Supreme Court promulgated a Decision on April 14, 2004, convicting accused-appellant Warren Que of selling regulated drugs and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. Que’s counsel of record, Atty. Nestor Ifurung, received a copy of the Decision on May 3, 2004. Que himself later claimed he was only notified on May 24, 2004. On June 17, 2004, Que filed a pro se letter-motion for reconsideration, pleading poverty and alleging his lawyer had abandoned him. The Court initially denied this motion for being filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period.
Que persisted, sending subsequent letters reiterating his abandonment claim and begging for reconsideration. The Court required Atty. Ifurung to comment. In his Compliance, the lawyer admitted he consciously decided not to file a motion for reconsideration because he believed it would be futile, a decision made without consulting his client. He cited physical ailments but provided no medical proof.
ISSUE
Whether the negligence of counsel, in unilaterally refusing to file a motion for reconsideration, deprives the accused of his right to counsel and due process, warranting a relaxation of procedural rules.
RULING
Yes. The Court set aside its prior denial and granted Que the opportunity to file a proper motion for reconsideration with the assistance of counsel. The legal logic rests on the fundamental right to counsel and the exceptions to the rule that a client is bound by counsel’s negligence. While generally, a client suffers the consequences of their lawyer’s mistakes, an exception applies when the negligence is so gross, reckless, and prejudicial that it effectively deprives the client of due process.
Here, Atty. Ifurung’s admitted dereliction was egregious. In a case involving life and liberty, with a penalty of reclusion perpetua, counsel has a sworn duty to exhaust every remedy and defense. By preemptively deciding a motion for reconsideration was futile without even consulting his client, the lawyer withheld a crucial legal remedy and abandoned his duty of entire devotion to his client’s cause. This gross negligence deprived Que of his right to effective assistance of counsel during a critical stage of appeal. The Court emphasized that where negligence costs a person their liberty, as here, there is even greater reason to suspend the strict application of procedural rules to serve substantial justice. Consequently, the Court reprimanded Atty. Ifurung and appointed the Public Attorney’s Office as counsel de oficio to file a belated motion for reconsideration on Que’s behalf.