"x x x
The petitioners claim that their former counsel was guilty of gross negligence for letting the CA decision lapse into finality by not filing a motion for reconsideration or by not appealing in due course to the Court.
Although the petitioners’ former counsel was blameworthy for the track their case had taken, there is no question that any act performed by the counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is still regarded as an act of the client. In view of this, even the negligence of the former counsel should bind them as his clients.[31] To hold otherwise would result to the untenable situation in which every defeated party, in order to salvage his cause, would simply claim neglect or mistake on the part of his counsel as a ground for reversing the adverse judgment. There would then be no end to litigation, for every shortcoming of the counsel could become the subject of challenge by his client through another counsel who, if he should also be found wanting, would similarly be disowned by the same client through yet another counsel, and so on ad infinitum.[32] This chain of laying blame could render court proceedings indefinite, tentative and subject to reopening at any time by the mere replacement of the counsel.[33]
Nonetheless, the gross negligence of counsel alone would not even warrant a deviation from the principle of finality of judgment, for the client must have to show that such negligence resulted in the denial of due process to the client. [34] When the counsel’s mistake is so great and so serious that the client is prejudiced and is denied his day in court, or when the counsel is guilty of gross negligence resulting in the client’s deprivation of his property without due process of law, the client is not concluded by his counsel’s mistakes and the case can be reopened in order to give the client another chance to present his case.[35] As such, the test herein is whether their former counsel’s negligence deprived the petitioners of due process of law.
For one to properly claim gross negligence on the part of his counsel, he must show that the counsel was guilty of nothing short of a clear abandonment of the client’s cause. Considering that the Court has held that the failure to file the appellant’s brief can qualify as simple negligence but cannot amount to gross negligence that justifies the annulment of the proceedings,[36] the failure to file an appellee’s brief may be similarly treated.
The Court has also held that the failure to file a motion for reconsideration only amounted to simple negligence.[37] In Pasiona v. Court of Appeals,[38] the Court declared that his counsel’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration did not necessarily deny due process to a party who had the opportunity to be heard at some point of the proceedings. The Court said:
In a number of cases wherein the factual milieu confronted by the aggrieved party was much graver than the one being faced by herein petitioner, the Court struck down the argument that the aggrieved parties were denied due process of law because they had the opportunity to be heard at some point of the proceedings even if they had not been able to fully exhaust all the remedies available by reason of their counsel’snegligence or mistake. Thus, in Dela Cruz v. Andres, the Court held that “where a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the essence of due process.” In the earlier case of Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the decision of the trial court attained finality by reason of counsel’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal but the Court still ruled that such negligence did not deprive petitioner of due process of law. As elucidated by the Court in said case, to wit:
“The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. xxxWhere opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process.”
Verily, so long as a party is given the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Also, in Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad, the Court held that:
The question is not whether petitioner succeeded in defending its rights and interests, but simply, whether it had the opportunity to present its side of the controversy.Verily, as petitioner retained the services of counsel of its choice, it should, as far as this suit is concerned, bear the consequences of its choice of a faulty option. xxx (Emphasis supplied)
Here, the petitioners were able to participate in the proceedings before the PARAD and the DARAB, and, in fact, obtained a favorable judgment from the DARAB. They also had a similar opportunity to ventilate their cause in the CA. That they had not been able to avail themselves of all the remedies open to them did not give them the justification to complain of a denial of due process. They could not complain because they were given the opportunity to defend their interest in due course, for it was such opportunity to be heard that was the essence of due process.[39]
Moreover, the petitioners themselves were guilty of being negligent for not monitoring the developments in their case. They learned about the adverse CA decision on December 11, 2001, more than two years after the decision had become final and executory. Had they vigilantly monitored their case, they themselves would have sooner discovered the adverse decision and avoided their plight. It was the petitioners’ duty, as the clients, to have kept in constant touch with their former counsel if only to keep themselves abreast of the status and progress of their case. They could not idly sit back, relax and await the outcome of the case.[40] Such neglect on their part fortifies our stance that they should suffer the consequence of their former counsel’s negligence. Indeed, every litigant is expected to act with prudence and diligence in prosecuting or defending his cause. Pleading a denial of due process will not earn for the negligent litigant the sympathy of the Court.
The other issues the petitioners raised relate to matters that the CA decision already settled. Considering and passing upon such issues again would undo the finality and immutability of the decision.
