GR 161070; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161070. April 14, 2008. JOHN HILARIO y SIBAL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner John Hilario was convicted of homicide by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). His counsel, Atty. Raul Rivera of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), failed to file a notice of appeal despite petitioner’s alleged instructions, causing the judgment to become final. While incarcerated, petitioner learned no appeal was filed. He then filed, pro se, a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the RTC, claiming excusable negligence due to his counsel’s inaction and asserting meritorious defenses, including alleged errors in his sentence and trial irregularities.
The RTC dismissed the petition, ruling the claim of excusable negligence was self-serving and unsubstantiated, and that negligence of counsel binds the client. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed it outright for failure to attach certain required documents, such as the RTC decision and the prosecutor’s comment. His motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on a technical ground, thereby potentially depriving petitioner of due process and a review of the RTC’s denial of his Petition for Relief, which was based on his counsel’s alleged gross negligence.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and remanded the case to the RTC. The Court emphasized that while procedural rules are mandatory, they may be relaxed to serve substantial justice. The right to appeal is a statutory right, and its deprivation raises due process concerns. The CA’s dismissal based solely on procedural non-compliance was too rigid, especially given the nature of the substantive claim: that a PAO lawyer’s gross negligence forfeited petitioner’s right to appeal his criminal conviction.
The core issue—whether counsel’s negligence was so gross as to constitute excusable negligence warranting relief from judgment—requires factual determination. The RTC dismissed the petition without requiring an explanation from the PAO lawyer, Atty. Rivera. This was a critical lapse. A lawyer’s negligence, especially of a court-appointed counsel, is not automatically binding on the client if it amounts to gross negligence tantamount to deprivation of due process. The RTC should have conducted a hearing to verify petitioner’s allegations against his counsel. Therefore, the case was remanded to the RTC to require Atty. Rivera’s comment, hold a hearing, and properly rule on the merits of the Petition for Relief.