G.R. No. 276682, February 10, 2025
RENATO GUEVARRA Y ROBLES, PETITIONER, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Renato Guevarra y Robles was a candidate for city councilor of Butuan City in the May 9, 2016 elections. He was charged with violating Section 34 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10049 (in relation to Section 13 of R.A. No. 9006 and Section 264 of B.P. Blg. 881) for allegedly engaging in partisan political activity as a radio commentator. The Information alleged that on April 12 and 23, 2016, during his radio program “Batang Butuan: Oras Na! Raon na” on Radyo Trumpeta FM, he attacked the candidacy of Congressman Laurence Lemuel Fortun by calling him names like “Lawig Traydor,” ignorant, liar, corrupt, and a drug user. The prosecution presented witnesses and recordings of the broadcasts. Guevarra pleaded not guilty, claiming he had resigned as a radio commentator in 2012 and was merely a guest on the program in April 2016. He presented a resignation letter and testimonies from the station’s acting manager and a colleague to support his defense. The RTC found him guilty, sentencing him to one year of imprisonment. The CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Guevarra moved for reconsideration. Prior to the CA’s resolution on his motion, Guevarra sent a letter to the CA informing it that he had severed ties with his counsel, Atty. Cyril Francis S. Casiño, and requested that subsequent orders be sent to his address in Butuan City. The CA’s March 25, 2024 Resolution denying his motion noted his letter and new address but was nevertheless sent to his old address in Cavite and to Atty. Casiño. By the time Guevarra received the resolution in Butuan City, the period to appeal to the Supreme Court had lapsed, and an Entry of Judgment was issued. Guevarra filed this Petition for Certiorari, arguing the CA gravely abused its discretion by not sending the resolution to his proper address and that the courts a quo erred in convicting him.

ISSUE

Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in affirming Guevarra’s conviction and issuing an Entry of Judgment despite not sending its Resolution to Guevarra’s proper address.

RULING

The Petition is denied. The Supreme Court ruled that while the CA was remiss in not sending the resolution to Guevarra’s new address, it did not err in sending it to his counsel of record, Atty. Casiño. The duty to inform the court of the termination of the attorney-client relationship rests on the counsel, not the client. Since the proper procedures for counsel’s withdrawal were not followed, Atty. Casiño remained the counsel of record, and service to him was valid. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the CA. The decision had become final and immutable, and the circumstances did not warrant the recall of the entry of judgment under the exceptions outlined in Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, as there was no showing of a miscarriage of justice. The Court also implicitly affirmed the factual findings of the lower courts that Guevarra, as a media practitioner, violated election laws by using his airtime for partisan political activity during the campaign period.