G.R. No. 253312 . March 01, 2023.
RODRIGO CONCHE Y OBILO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Rodrigo Conche was convicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 by the RTC of Parañaque City. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in a Decision dated September 21, 2015. His counsel, Atty. Evelyn Gutierrez of the Gutierrez and Trinidad Law Office, received a copy of the CA Decision on October 7, 2015, but failed to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal, causing the judgment to become final and executory. An Entry of Judgment was issued on October 23, 2015. Conche and his wife were surprised upon receiving the Entry of Judgment, as Atty. Gutierrez had promised to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Through the assistance of BNG Humanitarian Outreach Volunteer Paralegal Services, it was confirmed that no appeal was filed. Conche, through BNG, sought assistance from the Office of the Chief Justice and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) eventually entered its appearance and filed a Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and Notice of Appeal with the CA, arguing that Atty. Gutierrez’s gross negligence and misrepresentations deprived Conche of his right to appeal and due process. The CA denied the motion, reiterating the rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client. Conche filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and Notice of Appeal, thereby refusing to apply the exception to the general rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The general rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client and that final and executory judgments are immutable is not absolute. Exceptions exist when: (1) the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process; (2) its application results in the outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property; or (3) the interests of justice so require. In this case, Atty. Gutierrez’s failure to file an appeal despite her promise to do so, coupled with her misrepresentations to the client, constituted gross negligence that deprived Conche of his right to appeal and due process, leading to the outright deprivation of his liberty. The right to appeal, though statutory, is an essential part of the judicial system, and its suppression violates constitutional due process. Therefore, the CA Resolutions dated January 18, 2019 and August 20, 2020 were REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Entry of Judgment was RECALLED, and the CA was DIRECTED to give due course to Conche’s appeal. The Court also directed the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP to investigate Atty. Evelyn Gutierrez for administrative liability.