GR 190970; (November, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 190970 , November 24, 2014
VILMA M. SULIMAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Vilma M. Suliman, along with Luz P. Garcia (at-large), was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila with two counts of illegal recruitment under Republic Act No. 8042 and four counts of estafa under the Revised Penal Code. After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty of two counts of illegal recruitment and three counts of estafa, acquitting her of one count of estafa. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. She appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications to the penalties. Petitioner’s counsel received the CA Decision on May 26, 2009, but no motion for reconsideration was filed within the 15-day reglementary period, making the decision final on June 11, 2009. On July 3, 2009, through new collaborating counsel, petitioner filed a “Motion to Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration,” arguing her former counsel’s gross negligence in failing to inform her of the adverse decision deprived her of due process. The CA denied this motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not admitting petitioner’s belated Motion for Reconsideration and in not holding that petitioner should not be bound by the gross negligence of her former counsel.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that a client is generally bound by the counsel’s acts, including mistakes in procedural technique. The exception—when counsel’s gross negligence deprives the client of due process—does not apply if the client’s own negligence accompanies it. The Court found petitioner negligent for not vigilantly monitoring her case and merely relying on a third person for updates instead of personally following up with her counsel. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the Rules of Court, and deviations cannot be tolerated. The Court also noted petitioner and her counsel’s propensity to disregard court rules. Even if the Court were to relax the rules, a review of the evidence showed no error in the lower courts’ findings convicting petitioner of illegal recruitment and estafa, as factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive.