GR 202280; (December, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 202280 . December 07, 2016
CARLOS A. DIMAANDAL, PETITIONER, V. P02 REXY S. ILAGAN AND P02 EDENLY V. NAVARRO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Carlos Dimaandal was convicted by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) for resistance and disobedience to an agent of a person in authority. His former counsel, Atty. Josephine Concepcion, received a copy of the decision on May 20, 2009. She filed a motion for reconsideration on June 4, 2009, which the MCTC denied. Atty. Concepcion then filed a notice of appeal on July 17, 2009, invoking the “fresh period rule.” The MCTC denied the notice for being filed out of time, declaring its decision final and executory.
Dimaandal, through counsel, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was dismissed. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s dismissal. The CA ruled that the motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, thus it did not toll the appeal period. Consequently, the notice of appeal was belated. The CA also noted that the proper remedy from the RTC’s order was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, not a petition for review under Rule 42.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is bound by the negligence of his former counsel, whose procedural lapses resulted in the loss of his right to appeal, thereby depriving him of due process.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s rulings. The Court held that the petitioner is bound by the negligence of his counsel. The general rule is that a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. The only exception is when the lawyer’s gross negligence results in the grave injustice of depriving the client of due process. Here, no such deprivation occurred.
The Court emphasized that Dimaandal actively participated in the criminal proceedings before the MCTC and was given a full opportunity to defend himself. The loss of the right to appeal, a statutory privilege and not a natural right or a component of due process, resulted from his counsel’s failure to comply with procedural rules. Furthermore, the issue of counsel’s gross negligence was raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration before the CA. Basic principles of fairness and due process bar consideration of issues not raised in the proceedings below. A party is bound by the theory adopted in the lower courts and cannot change it on appeal. Thus, the MCTC decision correctly attained finality.