GR 149200; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149200 ; July 14, 2006
ABRAHAM ONG, petitioner, vs. CIBA GEIGY (PHILS.), INC., respondent.
FACTS
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision against petitioner Abraham Ong, ordering him to pay a sum of money to respondent Ciba Geigy. Petitioner’s counsel received the order denying the motion for reconsideration on December 17, 1998. However, counsel filed the notice of appeal ten days after the lapse of the reglementary period, prompting the RTC to deny it. Petitioner, through new counsel, subsequently filed a petition for relief from judgment, alleging he only learned of the order on March 1, 1999 due to his former counsel’s failure to inform him.
Petitioner attributed gross and inexcusable negligence to his former counsel, Atty. Patria Generoso-Abella. He cited her failure to file a timely notice of appeal and specific instances of negligence during trial, including the failure to challenge the competence of respondent’s witness, to raise counterclaims and defenses, and to properly handle vital documentary evidence. He argued this negligence deprived him of his day in court.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner was bound by the negligence of his former counsel, thereby denying his petition for relief from judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The general rule is that a client is bound by the mistakes and negligence of his counsel in the conduct of a case. The exception applies only when counsel’s negligence is so gross, reckless, and inexcusable as to deprive the client of his day in court. The Court found that Atty. Abella’s negligence, while regrettable, did not rise to this level.
Her errors pertained primarily to trial strategy and the presentation of evidence, which do not constitute gross negligence warranting relief. The failure to file a timely notice of appeal was deemed simple negligence, not gross, as it did not equate to a deprivation of one’s day in court; the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right. The cited jurisprudence, such as De Guzman and Ginete, were distinguished on their facts. Consequently, the trial court did not act in a capricious or whimsical manner amounting to grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for relief.