G.R. No. 159781; February 2, 2011
PETER BEJARASCO, JR., Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner, Peter Bejarasco, Jr., was convicted of grave threats and grave oral defamation by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sibonga, Cebu, on February 16, 2001. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Argao, Cebu, affirmed the convictions on July 31, 2001. Initially represented by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), the petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing his appeal memorandum was not filed due to the MTC’s failure to provide free transcripts. The RTC denied this motion on September 24, 2001. Subsequently, represented by private counsel Atty. Luzmindo B. Besario, the petitioner filed a motion for extension to file a petition for review in the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the extension. However, Atty. Besario sought another extension and ultimately failed to file the petition for review. Consequently, the CA dismissed the appeal on March 13, 2002, and the dismissal became final and executory, with an entry of judgment issued on April 4, 2002. Following the issuance of a warrant for his arrest by the MTC on March 31, 2003, the petitioner surrendered on May 22, 2003. On July 16, 2003, through another attorney, he filed a petition for review in the CA, alleging Atty. Besario had recklessly abandoned his case. The CA denied admission to this petition and ordered it expunged from the records on August 14, 2003, reiterating its earlier dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the gross negligence of the petitioner’s former counsel, Atty. Besario, in failing to file the petition for review, constitutes an exception to the general rule that binds a client to the acts and omissions of counsel, thereby warranting a reversal of the CA’s dismissal of the appeal and a grant of due process to the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA’s resolution. The Court held that while Atty. Besario was clearly negligent in handling the appeal, the petitioner was bound by this negligence and not entitled to relief. The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsel’s acts, including mistakes in procedural technique, as counsel holds implied authority to manage the suit. An exception exists when the counsel’s reckless or gross negligence deprives the client of due process. However, this exception does not apply when the client’s own negligence accompanies the counsel’s fault. The Court emphasized that a litigant has a duty to be vigilant and to periodically monitor the status of his case. The petitioner failed in this duty by not following up with his counsel for nearly 16 months after the CA’s entry of judgment and almost 22 months after the RTC’s affirmance, without verifying the status of his appeal or the filing of the petition for review, even as his counsel became scarce. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and is forfeited by failure to comply with procedural rules. The petitioner’s lack of diligence rendered him undeserving of judicial sympathy.