Negligence of litigant and lawyer

"xxx.

The Petition was filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, but petitioner did not even attempt to show any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. On this ground alone, the Petition may be dismissed.

It is not disputed that the Record on Appeal was filed out of time. The Court of Appeals could have relaxed the rules for perfecting an appeal, but was not required, by law, to review it.

The Court of Appeals found no reason to warrant any relaxation of the rules, after appreciating the following circumstances: (1) petitioner did not adduce evidence to prove the alleged shooting of his former counsel;43 (2) petitioner was represented by counsel belonging to a law office which had more than one associate;44 and (3) petitioner was a law graduate and should have been more vigilant.45

This Court cannot sidestep the rule on reglementary periods for appealing decisions, except in the most meritorious cases.46

Petitioner claims that the circumstances surrounding the failure to file the appeal are bereft of carelessness or inattention on the part of counsel, and thus, constitute excusable negligence.

This is unconvincing. In Sublay v. National Labor Relations Commission47 the petitioner filed an appeal out of time because the counsel on record did not inform her or her other counsel that a decision had been rendered in her case. This Court affirmed the denial of her appeal for having been filed out of time, explaining that:

The unbroken stream of judicial dicta is that clients are bound by the action of their counsel in the conduct of their case. Otherwise, if the lawyer's mistake or negligence was admitted as a reason for the opening of a case, there would be no end to litigation so long as counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned.48 (Citation omitted)

This Court noted in Sublay that the petitioner was represented by more than one lawyer. The decision she wished to appeal had been duly served on one of her lawyers on record, who failed to inform the more active counsel. This Court ruled that the petitioner was bound by the negligence of her counsel:

Lastly, petitioner's claim for judicial relief in view of her counsel's alleged negligence is incongruous, to say the least, considering that she was represented by more than one (1) lawyer. Although working merely as a collaborating counsel who entered his appearance for petitioner as early as May 1996, i.e., more or less six (6) months before the termination of the proceedings a quo, Arty. Alikpala had the bounden duty to monitor the progress of the case. A lawyer has the responsibility of monitoring and keeping track of the period of time left to file an appeal. He cannot rely on the courts to appraise him of the developments in his case and warn him against any possible procedural blunder. Knowing that the lead counsel was no longer participating actively in the trial of the case several months before its resolution, Atty. Alikpala who alone was left to defend petitioner should have put himself on guard and thus anticipated the release of the Labor Arbiter's decision. Petitioner's lead counsel might have been negligent but she was never really deprived of proper representation. This fact alone militates against the grant of this petition.49

Here, petitioner failed to respond to the assertion that Atty. Dialo's law office, Dialo Darunday & Associates Law Office, is a law firm with more than one lawyer, as well as legal staff, who must have been aware that Atty. Dialo was not reporting to office or receiving his mail sent there. Moreover, Atty. Dialo stopped reporting to office on May 2, 2008, whereas the law firm received the June 2, 2008 Order more than a month later, on June 12, 2008. Without any response to this point, this Court cannot automatically excuse the law office and assume that it could not adjust to Atty. Dialo's absence.

The law firm was certainly negligent in how it dealt with the Order. Given the other circumstances of this case, petitioner would ordinarily be bound by this negligence. Consequently, petitioner had the burden to sufficiently establish, by alleging and arguing, that this case is so meritorious that it warrants the relaxation of the procedural rules. This, petitioner did not bother to do.

Nonetheless, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction,50 this Court may choose to apply procedural rules more liberally to promote substantial justice. Thus, we delve into the substantial issues raised by petitioner.

Xxx."


G.R. No. 216425, November 11, 2020

ANACLETO BALLAHO ALANIS HI, PETITIONER, V. COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, AND HON. GREGORIO Y. DE LA PENA III, PRESIDING JUDGE, BR. 12, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ZAMBOANGA CITY, RESPONDENTS

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/nov2020/gr_216425_2020.html