5/26/2017 G.R.No.

159781

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

PETERBEJARASCO,JR., G.R.No.159781
Petitioner,
Present:

CARPIOMORALES,Chairperson,
BRION,
versus BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA,JR.,and
SERENO,JJ.

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES, Promulgated:
Respondent.
February2,2011
xx

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:


Thiscaseconcernsthedireconsequencesofalitigantsfailuretoperiodicallyfollowup
withhiscounselonthedevelopmentsofhisappeal.

The petitioner was convicted on February 16, 2001, for grave threats and grave oral
defamation in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Sibonga, Cebu. On July 31, 2001, the
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch26,inArgao,Cebuaffirmedtheconvictions.Induecourse,
thepetitioner,thenrepresentedbythePublicAttorneysOffice(PAO),soughtthereconsideration
of the RTC decision, claiming that he had not filed his appeal memorandum because of the
MTCsfailuretogivehimfreecopiesofthetranscriptsofstenographicnotes.Hearguedthatthe
RTCsdecisionshouldbesetasideandthecriminalcasesagainsthimshouldbedismisseddueto
theprematurityandtheseriouserrorsoffactsandlaw.However,theRTCdeniedthepetitioners
motionforreconsiderationonSeptember24,2001.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/159781.htm 1/5
5/26/2017 G.R.No.159781

OnOctober12,2001,thepetitioner,thistimerepresentedbyAtty.LuzmindoB.Besario(Atty.
Besario), a private practitioner, filed in the Court of Appeals (CA) a motion for extension of
timetofilehispetitionforreview(C.A.G.R.CRNo.UDK181).TheCAgrantedhismotion.
Insteadoffilinghispetitionforreviewwithintheperiodgranted,however,Atty.Besariosought
anotherextension,butstillfailedintheendtofilethepetitionforreview.Thus,onMarch 13,
2002, the CA dismissed his appeal. After the dismissal became final and executory, entry of
judgmentwasmadeonApril4,2002.

Thereafter,onMarch31,2003,theMTCissuedawarrantofarrestagainstthepetitioner,
whosurrenderedhimselfonMay22,2003.

OnJuly16,2003,thepetitionerfiledintheCAhispetitionforreviewthroughanotherattorney,
allegingthatAtty.Besariohadrecklesslyabandonedhimandhaddisappearedwithoutleavinga
trace.

In its resolution dated August 14, 2003, the CA denied admission to the petition for
reviewandordereditexpungedfromtherecordsandreiterateditsMarch13,2002resolutionof
[1]
dismissal.

Aggrieved,thepetitionerisnowbeforetheCourttopleadhiscause.HesubmitsthatAtty.
Besariosrecklessabandonmentofhiscaseeffectivelydeprivedhimofhisdayincourtandof
hisrighttodueprocessandthatsaidformercounselsactuationconstitutedrecklessandgross
negligencethatshouldnotbebindingagainsthim.

Thepetitionisdeniedduecourse.
ThatAtty. Besario was negligent in handling the petitioners case was clear. Indeed, his abject
failure to file the petition for review in the CA despite his two motions for extension for that
purposewarrantednootherconclusionbutthathewasnegligent.

Nonetheless, we find no justification to reverse the CAs disposition of the appeal. The
petitionerwasboundbyAtty.Besariosnegligence.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/159781.htm 2/5
5/26/2017 G.R.No.159781

Thegeneralruleisthataclientisboundbythecounselsacts,includingevenmistakesin
[2]
therealmofproceduraltechnique. Therationalefortheruleisthatacounsel,onceretained,
holdstheimpliedauthoritytodoallactsnecessaryor,atleast,incidentaltotheprosecutionand
managementofthesuitinbehalfofhisclient,suchthatanyactoromissionbycounselwithin
thescopeoftheauthorityisregarded,intheeyesofthelaw,astheactoromissionoftheclient
[3]
himself. Arecognizedexceptiontotheruleiswhentherecklessorgrossnegligenceofthe
counseldeprivestheclientofdueprocessoflaw.Fortheexceptiontoapply,however,thegross
negligenceshouldnotbeaccompaniedbytheclientsownnegligenceormalice,consideringthat
theclienthasthedutytobevigilantinrespectofhisinterestsbykeepinghimselfuptodateon
thestatusofthecase.Failinginthisduty,theclientshouldsufferwhateveradversejudgmentis
renderedagainsthim.

Truly, a litigant bears the responsibility to monitor the status of his case, for no prudent party
leaves the fate of his case entirely in the hands of his lawyer. It is the clients duty to be in
contact with his lawyer from time to time in order to be informed of the progress and
[4]
developmentsofhiscase hence,tomerelyrelyonthebarereassurancesofhislawyerthat
everythingisbeingtakencareofisnotenough.
Here,thepetitionertooknearly16monthsfromtheissuanceoftheentryofjudgmentby
theCA,andalmost22monthsfromwhentheRTCaffirmedtheconvictionsbeforeheactually
filed his petition for review in the CA. He ought to have been sooner alerted about his dire
situationbythefactthatanunreasonablylongtimehadlapsedsincetheRTChadhandeddown
its dismissal of his appeal without Atty. Besario having updated him on the developments,
including showing to him a copy of the expected petition for review. Also, he could have
himselfverifiedattheCAwhetherornotthepetitionforreviewhadbeenfiled,especiallyupon
realizing that Atty. Besario had started making himself scarce to him. In short, the petitioners
failure to know or to find out the real status of his appeal rendered him undeserving of any
sympathyfromtheCourtvisvisthenegligenceofhisformercounsel.

The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but is merely a statutory
[5]
privilege that may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by the law. The right is
unavoidablyforfeitedbythelitigantwhodoesnotcomplywiththemannerthusprescribed.Soit
iswiththepetitioner.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/159781.htm 3/5
5/26/2017 G.R.No.159781

WHEREFORE,theCourtaffirmstheresolutionpromulgatedonAugust14,2003inC.A.G.R.
CRNo.UDK181forfailureofthepetitionertoshowareversibleerrorcommittedbytheCourt
ofAppeals.

SOORDERED.



LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson




ARTUROD.BRIONMARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice





MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice


ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision


CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/159781.htm 4/5
5/26/2017 G.R.No.159781

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,p.46.
[2]
ProducersBankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.126620,April17,2002,381SCRA185,192.
[3]
Peoplev.Bitanga,G.R.No.159222,June26,2007,525SCRA623,632.
[4]
DelosSantosv.Elizalde,G.R.Nos.141810&141812,February2,2007,514SCRA14,31,citingBernardov.CourtofAppeals
(SpecialSixthDivision),G.R.No.106153,July141997,275SCRA413.
[5] EstateofFelominaG.Macadangdangv.Gaviola,G.R.No.156809 March4,2009,580SCRA565,573.
,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/159781.htm 5/5