CASE DIGEST : RODRIGO CONCHE Y OBILO v. PEOPLE GR No. 253312, Mar 01, 2023 GAERLAN

FACTS : Rodrigo O. Conche was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), which sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. Although his counsel, the Gutierrez and Trinidad Law Office, received a copy of the CA decision, it failed to file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal to the Supreme Court, causing the decision to become final and executory. Conche and his wife later discovered that, despite assurances from their counsel that an appeal had been filed, no such pleading was ever submitted.

Seeking relief, Conche obtained assistance from the BNG Humanitarian Outreach Volunteer Paralegal Services, which confirmed with the CA that no appeal had been filed. He subsequently sought help from the Office of the Chief Justice, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and eventually the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), which entered its appearance and filed a Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and Notice of Appeal. The PAO argued that Conche's former counsel was guilty of gross negligence and misrepresentation, warranting an exception to the rule that a client is bound by the negligence of counsel.

The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the motion, insisting that Conche was likewise responsible for monitoring his case. The CA denied the motion, finding no compelling reason to relax the rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client, and likewise denied Conche's motion for reconsideration. Conche thereafter elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE : WON CA is correct

HELD : The Supreme Court granted Conche's petition, holding that his constitutional right to due process was violated due to the gross negligence and misrepresentations of his counsel, Atty. Evelyn Gutierrez. Although the general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client and that final judgments are immutable, the Court ruled that this case falls under the recognized exceptions because counsel's failure to file the promised appeal deprived Conche of his right to appeal and effectively denied him liberty. The Court found that Atty. Gutierrez repeatedly assured Conche, his wife, and BNG Humanitarian Outreach Volunteer Paralegal Services that an appeal had already been filed, when in fact no appeal or motion for reconsideration was ever submitted, causing the conviction to become final and executory.

The Court further held that Conche was not guilty of contributory negligence. As a detained prisoner, he reasonably relied on his retained counsel and, upon learning of the Entry of Judgment, immediately sought assistance from the Office of the Chief Justice, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Public Attorney's Office, and BNG to revive his appeal. The delay in filing the motion to recall the Entry of Judgment was attributed to the administrative processing of these agencies rather than to Conche. The Court also observed that there appeared to be substantial issues regarding compliance with the chain of custody requirements under the law, warranting a review of the merits of his appeal. Consequently, the Court recalled the Entry of Judgment, directed the Court of Appeals to give due course to Conche's appeal, and referred Atty. Gutierrez to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation.

The case stemmed from Conche's conviction for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). In resolving the petition, the Court emphasized the constitutional right of an accused under Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution to be heard through effective counsel. It likewise cited Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, stressing that lawyers must competently, diligently, and faithfully protect their clients' interests, and that gross negligence resulting in the loss of a client's right to appeal constitutes a denial of due process.