Ong Lay Hin v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin (Ong) and Leo Obsioma, Jr. were convicted of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, Cebu City, for failing to pay Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company P344,752.20 in violation of a trust receipt agreement. They were sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty. Procedural History: The RTC denied Ong's Motion for Reconsideration. Ong filed a Notice of Appeal, which was given due course, and the records were transmitted to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's Decision in toto and denied Ong's Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration. The CA issued an Entry of Judgment, declaring the case final and executory on May 15, 2003, based on the registry return card indicating that Ong's former counsel, Zosa & Quijano Law Offices, received a copy of the CA's Resolution on April 29, 2003. Upon receipt of the records, the RTC ordered Ong's arrest. Ong was arrested on February 12, 2010, and is currently serving his sentence at the New Bilibid Prison. The Petition: Ong filed a Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with application for preliminary and/or mandatory injunction, alleging that his counsel never received a copy of the CA's Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration, thus the CA gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Entry of Judgment. He also claimed the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the arrest warrant. Ong further argued that even if his counsel received the Resolution, the counsel's gross negligence deprived him of due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing the entry of judgment. Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest and commitment order against petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin. Whether petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin’s former counsel was grossly negligent.
Ruling
The Petition is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing the entry of judgment: The Court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion. The registry return card, which carries the presumption of accuracy as an official record evidencing service by mail, indicated that Ong's former counsel received the CA's Resolution on April 29, 2003. Petitioner failed to rebut this presumption. The affidavits of his wife and mother-in-law were inadmissible hearsay. Since the 15-day period to appeal commenced on April 29, 2003, and no appeal was filed within 15 days, the Decision became final and executory on May 15, 2003. Consequently, the CA did not err in issuing the Entry of Judgment. On Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest and commitment order against petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. Once the CA issued the Entry of Judgment and remanded the case records, it became the trial court's ministerial duty to execute the final and executory judgment. The issuance of the arrest warrant and commitment order was a necessary consequence of the finality of the conviction. On Whether petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin’s former counsel was grossly negligent: The Court reiterated the general rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client, with the exception being when such negligence deprives the client of due process. However, the Court found that petitioner failed to prove gross negligence. Furthermore, the client has a duty to monitor the status of their case. Petitioner took almost seven years from the CA's Resolution to file a petition before the Supreme Court, an "unreasonably long time" that should have alerted him to his situation, as established in Bejarasco, Jr. v. People. His failure to be vigilant in monitoring his case rendered him undeserving of sympathy regarding his counsel's alleged negligence.
Main Doctrine
The negligence of counsel binds the client, and the client has the duty to monitor the status of their case, especially if it is taking an unreasonably long time to be resolved. Failure to do so, and the subsequent failure to appeal within the reglementary period, renders the judgment final and executory, barring claims of deprivation of due process based solely on counsel's alleged negligence.