Resurreccion v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: At the time of the alleged offenses, petitioners Pedro G. Resurreccion, Joseph Cometa, and Criseforo Literato, Jr. held positions as Municipal Mayor, Municipal Budget Officer, and Municipal Engineer, respectively, in the Municipality of Pilar, Surigao del Norte. A special audit and post-audit conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA) for the period 1992-1994 revealed several financial irregularities. These included the awarding of contracts for construction materials totaling P1,285,814.17 to Kent Marketing, Samuel Trigo, and Domingo Tesiorna without public bidding, in violation of Republic Act No. 7160. Furthermore, basic disbursement procedures were not followed, leading to the classification of these expenditures as irregular. Other findings included cash disbursements instead of checks, lack of proper documentation, purchases from unlicensed suppliers, and quantities exceeding programmed amounts. Additionally, Mayor Resurreccion was reimbursed P3,000.00 from the Development Fund for a donation to the Knights of Columbus, deemed a violation of the Constitution and R.A. 7160, and potentially malversation. Two payrolls totaling P79,000.00 for unspecified honoraria were also disbursed without proper approval or payee acknowledgment. Procedural History: Based on the COA findings, petitioners Resurreccion, Cometa, and Literato, Jr., along with co-accused Wilfredo B. Consigo and Pilarito Orejas, were charged with violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and, in Resurreccion's case, malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. After pleading not guilty, the accused admitted certain facts during pre-trial. The prosecution presented its evidence, and the defense's Demurrer to Evidence was denied. The defense, however, failed to present its own evidence. The Sandiganbayan, in its decision dated February 11, 2010, found Resurreccion and Orejas guilty of Section 3(e) violations in two cases, Literato Jr. guilty in one case, and Cometa guilty in another case. Resurreccion was also convicted of malversation. The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration. This led to the filing of the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the Sandiganbayan's decision and resolution through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Their primary arguments center on alleged denial of due process due to the gross negligence of their former counsel, Atty. Manuel Corpuz, who they claim failed to inform them of case developments and hearings, leading to the waiver of their right to present evidence. They also contend that the Sandiganbayan erred in denying their motion for reconsideration based on a technicality regarding the notice of hearing. The petitioners argue that their counsel's inaction constituted gross negligence, an exception to the rule that a client is bound by counsel's mistakes, and that the denial of their motion for reconsideration was based on an oversight. The Office of the Special Prosecutor, however, prays for the denial of the petition, asserting that the client is bound by counsel's actions, the alleged negligence was not gross, and the denial of the motion for reconsideration was proper.
Issue(s)
Whether the negligence of the former counsel of the petitioners in allegedly not informing them about the status of their case, resulting in their failure to present evidence and, consequently, to the waiver of their right to present evidence, is a valid ground to set aside the judgment for conviction. Whether the 1st Division of the Sandiganbayan correctly denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on the ground that the motion did not contain a notice of hearing.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of counsel's negligence: The Court reiterated the settled rule that the negligence and mistakes of a counsel de parte bind the client. Exceptions to this rule, such as gross or palpable negligence, are strictly construed and require clear abandonment of the client's cause, not accompanied by the client's own negligence. In this case, the Court found that the former counsel, Atty. Corpuz, was not guilty of gross negligence. While he may have failed to communicate with the petitioners for a period, this did not constitute abandonment. Furthermore, the petitioners themselves were negligent for failing to monitor the status of their case and to keep in contact with their counsel. Their repeated absences from scheduled hearings, despite notices, led to the waiver of their right to present evidence, a consequence they could not later blame on their counsel. The Court emphasized that a litigant bears the responsibility to monitor their case and cannot solely rely on their lawyer. On the denial of the motion for reconsideration: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's denial of the motion for reconsideration. Under the Rules of Court, every written motion must be set for hearing by the movant, and the notice of hearing must be served on all parties at least three days before the hearing, specifying the time and date. The motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners merely prayed for submission and approval by the court, without stating the time, date, and place of the hearing. Such a motion, lacking the required notice of hearing, is considered pro forma, a "worthless piece of paper" that the court has no authority to act upon. A pro forma motion for reconsideration does not suspend the running of the period to appeal, and its denial was therefore proper.
Main Doctrine
The negligence of a counsel de parte binds the client, and exceptions to this rule, such as gross or palpable negligence, are strictly construed. Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration that lacks the required notice of hearing is considered pro forma and does not suspend the running of the period to appeal.