G.R. No. 211829. January 30, 2019.
JACINTO J. BAGAPORO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jacinto Bagaporo was convicted of Bigamy by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). He filed a notice of appeal. During the appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA), his counsel of record, Atty. Angelo Cerdon, received the CA’s order to file an appellant’s brief but failed to do so. Consequently, the CA dismissed the appeal for failure to file the required brief, and the dismissal became final and executory with an entry of judgment.
Subsequently, Bagaporo, through a new counsel, filed a “Petition for Relief from Resolution or Judgment in Case Entry was Already Ordered” with the CA, alleging gross negligence by Atty. Cerdon. The CA treated the petition as one for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court and denied it, ruling that such a petition is not an available remedy from a final CA resolution. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied the petition for relief.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling. The nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the pleading and the relief sought. Bagaporo’s petition, filed after the CA resolution had become final and executory and seeking to set aside that final resolution, was correctly treated by the CA as a petition for relief under Rule 38. It is settled jurisprudence that a petition for relief from judgment is a remedy available only from judgments or final orders of municipal, metropolitan, or regional trial courts, not from resolutions of the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. The proper recourse from a final CA resolution dismissing an appeal is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, not a petition for relief.
The Court further held that the negligence of counsel binds the client. Bagaporo’s failure to file the appellant’s brief through his counsel of record resulted in the finality of the judgment of conviction. The Court also addressed the substantive issue, upholding the constitutionality of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. The requirement for a judicial declaration of presumptive death before contracting a subsequent marriage is a reasonable means to ensure objective proof and prevent subjective beliefs from undermining the marital institution, serving a compelling state interest. The petition was denied for lack of merit.