Gross negligence of counsel

REYES vs. COURT OF APPEALS

[G.R. No. 111682. February 6, 1997]
FACTS:

Petitioner Zenaida Reyes was accused of falsifying a deed of sale of four (4) parcels of
land by feigning and signing the name of Pablo Floro
Hearings were scheduled for the presentation of petitioners evidence on six different
dates
On motion of private prosecutor, the court declared petitioner to have waived the right to
present her evidence
The RTC rendered its decision finding petitioner guilty of falsification
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts ruling
Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit

ISSUE: Whether the trial court properly held petitioner to have waived the right to present
evidence because of her counsels negligence.

RULING:
PETITION IS GRANTED.
Keeping in mind that this case involves personal liberty, the negligence of
counsel was certainly so gross that it should not be allowed to prejudice petitioners
constitutional right to be heard. The judicial conscience certainly cannot rest easy on a
conviction based solely on the evidence of the prosecution just because the presentation
of the defense evidence had been barred by technicality. Rigid application of rules must
yield to the duty of courts to render justice where justice is due to secure to every
individual all possible legal means to prove his innocence of a crime with which he or
she might be charged.

The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan for a new trial for
the purpose of allowing petitioner to present evidence in her defense with directive to the
court thereafter to decide the case with all deliberate speed.
 DELGADO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-46392 November 10, 1986

FACTS:

Emma R. Delgado, herein petitioner, together with Gloria C. Tortona, Celia Capistrano and
Catalino Bautista was charged with estafa thru falsification of public and/or official
documents resulting in deceiving one Erlinda Rueda, a Medical Technologist, in arranging
her travel to the United States
Petitioner Emma R. Delgado was assisted and represented by her counsel de parte, Atty.
Lamberto G. Yco
December 13, 1973 - the date set for the continuation of the defense evidence, said Atty. Yco
failed to appear despite proper and previous notice
The Trial Court considered Emma Delgado to have waived presentation of her evidence, and
considered the case submitted for decision
March 20, 1974 - RTC - guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Estafa thru
Falsification of Public and/or Official Documents
December 6, 1976 - CA affirmed the decision of the RTC
February 17, 1977 - petitioner filed with respondent Court of Appeals an "Urgent Motion to
Set Aside Entry of Judgment, to Recall the Records and Allw the Movant to Personally
Receive Copy of the Decision denied on April 20, 1977
May 11, 1977 - an Order was issued by respondent Court of First Instance of Manila
directing the arrest of herein petitioner Emma R. Delgado and the confiscation of her bond
for failure to appear at the execution of judgment on May 11, 1977
May 27, 1977 - petitioner filed a Motion for the Reconsideration of the Order
- newly discovered fact that petitioner came to know for the first time only
on May 19, 1977 that Atty. Lamberto G. Yco is not a member of the
Philippine Bar

ISSUE: WON the petitioner is entitled to a new trial

RULING: YES. An accused person is entitled to be represented by a member of the bar in a
criminal case filed against her before the Regional Trial Court. Unless she is represented by a
lawyer, there is great danger that any defense presented in her behalf will be inadequate considering
the legal perquisites and skills needed in the court proceedings. This would certainly be a denial of
due process.
The assailed judgment is SET ASIDE, and a new one is hereby rendered,
remanding the case to the trial court for new trial.