SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015
HENRY ONG LAY HIN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (2ND DIVISION), HON. GABRIEL T. INGLES, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH 58, CEBU CITY, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Hiring legal counsel does not relieve litigants of their duty to “monitor the status of [their] case[s],”1 especially if their cases are taking an “unreasonably long time”2 to be resolved.
This is a Petition3 for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with application for preliminary and/or mandatory injunction to set aside the Court of Appeals’ Entry of Judgment4 in CA-G.R. CR No. 24368, and the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Cebu City’s Order5 dated March 25, 2004 and Order of Detention6 dated February 15, 2010 in Criminal Case No. CBU-48773.7cralawred
In the Decision8 dated February 8, 2000, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Cebu City, convicted petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin (Ong) and Leo Obsioma, Jr. (Obsioma, Jr.) of estafa punished under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.9 The trial court found that Ong and Obsioma, Jr. failed to pay Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company a total of ?344,752.20, in violation of their trust receipt agreement with the bank.10 They were sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.11cralawred
Ong filed a Motion for Reconsideration,12 which the trial court denied in its Order13 dated March 31, 2000.
Ong filed a Notice of Appeal,14 which the trial court gave due course.15 The trial court then transmitted the case records to the Court of Appeals.16cralawred
In the Decision17 dated November 29, 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial court’s Decision.18 The Court of Appeals likewise denied Ong’s Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution19 dated April 14, 2003 for raising mere rehashed arguments.20cralawred
The Court of Appeals then issued an Entry of Judgment,21 declaring that the case became final and executory on May 15, 2003. The Court of Appeals based the date of finality on the date of receipt indicated in the registry return card22 corresponding to the mail sent to Ong’s former counsel, Zosa & Quijano Law Offices. Based on the registry return card, Zosa & Quijano Law Offices received on April 29, 2003 a copy of the Court of Appeals’ Resolution denying Ong’s Motion for Reconsideration.23cralawred
On March 22, 2004, the trial court received the original records of the case, the Decision, and the Entry of Judgment issued by the Court of Appeals. In view thereof, the trial court, then presided by Judge Gabriel T. Ingles, ordered the arrest of Ong.24cralawred
Almost six (6) years after, or on February 12, 2010 at about 10:30 p.m., Ong was arrested at Ralphs Wines Museum located at No. 2253 Aurora Boulevard, Tramo, Pasay City.25 He was initially ordered committed to the Cebu City Jail26 but is currently serving his sentence at the New Bilibid Prison.27cralawred
On May 6, 2010, Ong filed before this court a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with application for issuance of preliminary and/or mandatory injunction.28cralawred
In the Resolution29 dated June 16, 2010, this court ordered respondents to comment on Ong’s Petition.30cralawred
In the meantime, Ong filed the Urgent Motion for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction or, Alternatively, for Bail,31 which this court noted in the Resolution32 dated July 28, 2010.
The People of the Philippines then filed a Comment33 on the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus. It also commented on Ong’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction or, Alternatively, for Bail.34cralawred
Ong replied to the Comment on the Petition35 and to the Comment on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction or, Alternatively, for Bail.36 He then filed a supplemental pleading to his Reply.37cralawred
In his Petition for Certiorari, Ong alleges that his counsel never received a copy of the Court of Appeals’ Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration. Consequently, the Decision of the Court of Appeals never became final and executory, and the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Entry of Judgment. Judge Gabriel T. Ingles likewise gravely abused his discretion in issuing a warrant for his arrest and ordering his commitment to the Cebu City Jail.38cralawred
Assuming that his former counsel received a copy of the Court of Appeals’ Resolution, Ong argues that his counsel was grossly negligent in failing to appeal the Court of Appeals’ Resolution. This gross negligence allegedly deprived him of due process and, therefore, should not bind him.39cralawred
Considering the alleged grave abuse of discretion of the Court of Appeals and the trial court, Ong prays that this court issue a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction for him to be “liberated from his . . . illegal imprisonment.”40 In the alternative, he prays that this court allow him to post bail for his provisional liberty while this court decides his Petition for Certiorari.41cralawred
In its Comment, the People of the Philippines argues that the registry return card “carries the presumption that ‘it was prepared in the course of official duties that have been regularly performed [and must be] presumed to be accurate unless proven otherwise.’”42 In this case, the registry return card corresponding to the copy of the Court of Appeals’ Resolution sent to Ong’s former counsel indicates that his counsel received the Resolution on April 29, 2003. This date, therefore, must be presumed to be the date of receipt of the Resolution. Since Ong failed to appeal within the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals’ Decision became final and executory and the Court of Appeals correctly issued the Entry of Judgment.43cralawred
Even assuming that his former counsel did not receive a copy of the Resolution, the People argues that this negligence bound Ong under the rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client.44cralawred
With respect to Ong’s prayer for issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, the People contends that he “failed to point out [the] specific instances where the [Court of Appeals and the trial court] had committed grave abuse of discretion[.]”45 Consequently, Ong is not entitled to the Writ prayed for.46cralawred
On Ong’s prayer to be allowed to post bail, the People argues that the grant of bail is premised on the uncertainty of whether an accused is guilty or innocent.47 Considering that Ong’s conviction had already removed this uncertainty, “it would, generally speaking, be absurd to admit [Ong] to bail.”48cralawred
The issues for this court’s resolution are:
(1) | Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing the entry of judgment; |
(2) | Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest and commitment order against petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin; and |
(3) | Whether petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin’s former counsel was grossly negligent. |
For the exception to apply . . . the gross negligence should not be accompanied by the client’s own negligence or malice, considering that the client has the duty to be vigilant in respect of his interests by keeping himself up-to-date on the status of the case. Failing in this duty, the client should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against him.59cralawred
cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Designated acting member per S.O. No. 1910 dated January 12, 2015.
1Bejarasco, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 159781, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 328, 331 [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].
2 Id.
3Rollo, pp. 3–26.
4 Id. at 61.
5 Id. at 46.
6 Id. at 47.
7 Id. at 46-47.
8 RTC records, pp. 183–193. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Jose P. Soberano, Jr.
9 Id. at 193.
10 Id. at 188–189.
11 Id. at 193.
12 Id. at 199–206.
13 Id. at 237. The Order was penned by Pairing Judge Victorino U. Montecillo.
14 Id. at 241.
15 Id. at 242.
16 Id. at 245–246.
17Rollo, pp. 29–39. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia (Chair) (former Justice of this court) and Bienvenido L. Reyes (currently a Justice of this court) of the Second Division.
18 Id. at 38.
19 Id. at 41.
20 Id.
21 CA rollo, p. 208.
22 Id. at 206.
23 See CA rollo, p. 206.
24 RTC records, p. 268.
25 Id. at 274.
26 Id. at 282.
27Rollo, pp. 265 and 272–273.
28 Id. at 3.
29 Id. at 68–69.
30 Id. at 68.
31 Id. at 77–86.
32 Id. at 88–89.
33 Id. at 111–129.
34 Id. at 132–146.
35 Id. at 155–166.
36 Id. at 171–178.
37 Id. at 190–206.
38 Id. at 17–19.
39 Id. at 20–21.
40 Id. at 21.
41 Id. at 85.
42 Id. at 119.
43 Id. at 118–120.
44 Id. at 122–125.
45 Id. at 126.
46 Id. at 127.
47 Id. at 143, citing Obosa v. Court of Appeals, 334 Phil. 253, 273–274 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
48 Id.
49Lagua v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173390, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 176, 181 [Per J. Sereno (Now C.J.), Second Division].
50Eureka Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. Valencia, 610 Phil. 444, 453 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
51 Id. at 453–454.
52Rollo, p. 63.
53 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, sec. 36 provides:
Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.
54 RTC records, p. 269. The registry return card addressed to Atty. Francis M. Zosa was attached at the back of p. 269 of the RTC records.
55 Rules of Court, Rule 122, sec. 6 provides:
Section 6. When appeal to be taken. — An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from. This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order overruling the motion shall have been served upon the accused or his counsel at which time the balance of the period begins to run.
56Bejarasco, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 159781, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 328, 330 [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].
57 Id. at 331.
58 G.R. No. 159781, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 328 [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].
59 Id. at 331.
60 Id. at 329–330.
61 Id. at 330.
62 Id. at 331.
63 Id.
64 Id.
65 Id.
66 Id.
67 Id. at 332.