Carlos’s conviction for resistance and disobedience to an agent of a person in authority, a case that falls under the Rules on Summary Procedure was promulgated on May 20, 2009, and the decision was received by his former lawyer, Atty. Josephine Concepcion on the same day. She, however, filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision on June 4, 2009. The motion was denied, hence she filed her notice of appeal on July 17, 2009, insisting that she had a “fresh period” of 15 days from receipt of the denial of the motion on July 13, 2009.
The MCTC, however, denied the notice of appeal, ruling that it was filed out of time, and declared the decision final and executory. It also issued a warrant for the arrest of Carlos.
Atty. Concepcion assailed the MTCT ruling in a petition for certiorari before the RTC. The latter court however denied the petition, ruling that the notice of appeal was filed out of time.
The CA also denied the Rule 42 petition filed by Carlos. It noted that Dimaandal’s filing of a motion for reconsideration before the MCTC did not toll the running of the period to to appeal the May 20, 2009 decision, as such motion is a prohibited pleading in criminal cases covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Thus, when Dimaandal filed his notice of appeal, the period to perfect his appeal had already lapsed. The MCTC, therefore, properly denied the appeal for having been filed out of time.
The Issue:
Whether or not the notice of appeal was filed out of time.
The Ruling:
We DENY the petition for review on certiorari as we find no reversible error committed by the CA in issuing its assailed decision and resolution.
At the outset, we reiterate the well-settled rule that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency, or quasi-judicial body need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic considerations of fairness and due process impel this rule. Any issue raised for the first time is barred by estoppels.
Note that this principle forbids parties from changing their theory of the case. A party, after all, is bound by the theory he adopts and by the cause of action he stands on, and cannot be permitted after having lost thereon to repudiate his theory and cause of action and adopt another and seek to re-litigate the matter anew either in the same forum or on appeal.
In the present case, Dimaandal raised the issue on his former counsel’s gross neglect for the first time in his motion for reconsideration before the CA, after the latter affirmed the RTC’s finding on the proper dismissal of Dimaandal’s appeal before the MCTC for having been filed out of time. The CA, therefore, correctly dismissed the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, as it is barred from taking cognizance of an issue raised for the first time on appeal.
At any rate, there is no merit in Dimaandal’s claim that he is not bound by the mistakes of his former counsel.
The general rule is that the client is bound by the negligence and mistakes of his counsel. The only exception would be where the lawyer’s gross negligence would result in the grave injustice of depriving his client of the due process of law.A departure from this rule would bring about never-ending suits, so long as lawyers could allege their own fault or negligence to support the client’s case and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by operation of law.
In Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,the decision of the trial court attained finality due to the failure of the petitioner’s counsel to timely file a notice of appeal. The Court ruled that such negligence did not deprive the petitioner of due process of law since it was given the opportunity to advocate its cause or defend its interest in due course. By simply failing to file its appeal within the reglementary period, it could be successfully argued that the petitioner was deprived of its day in court.
Similarly, in the present case, we reject the argument that Dimaandal was denied due process because of the negligence of his counsel who belatedly filed his notice of appeal, precisely because Dimaandal had the opportunity to defend himself in the criminal proceedings against him before the MCTC.
As shown by the records, Dimaandal was able to actively participate in the proceedings a quo. While he may have lost his right to appeal, he was not denied his day in court. So long as a party is given the opportunity to defend its interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is the opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.
We stress that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. One who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly comply with the requirements of the rules; failure to do so, as in Dimaandal’s case, leads to the loss of the right to appeal.The MCTC decision, therefore, became final and executory when Dimaandal failed to file a timely appeal therefrom.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari and AFFIRM the decision dated August 31, 2011 and resolution dated May 29, 2012, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 113236.
SO ORDERED.
BRION, J.:
Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 202280, December 7, 2016, CARLOS A. DIMAANDAL, PETITIONER, V. P02 REXY S. ILAGAN AND P02 EDENLY V. NAVARRO, RESPONDENTS.
Citations omitted.