SC to litigants: Keep constant communication with lawyer

CEBU, Philippines - The Supreme Court has reminded all court litigants to maintain constant communications with their lawyers to be updated on the status of their case.

The reminder was embodied in the high tribunal’s ruling dismissing a petition for review filed by an accused who was convicted of grave threats and grave oral defamation because of his lawyer’s alleged negligence.

The Supreme Court third division chaired by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales denied the petition for review filed by Peter Bejarasco Jr. seeking the reversal of his conviction by the Municipal Trial Court in Sibonga which was upheld by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.

The MTC in Sibonga convicted Bejarasco on February 16, 2001. The decision was upheld by the RTC in Argao five months later.

Bejarasco hired the services of lawyer Luzmindo B. Besario who filed before the Court of Appeals on October 12, 2001 a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review in behalf of his client. The appellate court granted his request.

Besario failed to file the petition for review within the period granted and sought for another extension which was again granted by the appellate court.

But Besario still failed to file the petition making the conviction of his client final and executory. An entry of judgment was subsequently made on April 4, 2002.

The MTC in Sibonga issued a warrant of arrest against Bejarasco following the entry of judgment prompting the latter to surrender on May 22, 2003.

Bejarasco hired another lawyer and filed an appeal before the appellate court claiming that his previous lawyer had recklessly abandoned him and had disappeared without leaving a trace.

He claimed that Besario’s reckless abandonment of his case deprived him of his day in court and of his right to due process and that his former counsel’s actuation constituted reckless and gross negligence that should not be binding against him. But his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals.

Bejarasco elevated the matter before the Supreme Court hoping to gain a favorable ruling, but the high tribunal instead gave him a lecture.

“The rationale for the rule is that a counsel, once retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself,” reads the Supreme Court ruling. (FREEMAN)