February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 178123 : February 17, 2010] ROMEO G. PANGANIBAN V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION GROUP [CIDG]:
[G.R. No. 178123 : February 17, 2010]
ROMEO G. PANGANIBAN V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION GROUP [CIDG]
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 17 February 2010:
G.R. No. 178123 (Romeo G. Panganiban v. Office of the Ombudsman, and Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group'[CIDG]). � On August 20, 2003, respondent Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) filed a complaint against herein petitioner Romeo G. Panganiban (petitioner), who was then the Regional Director of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Region 3, for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) Nos. 6713, 1379 and 3019, and for perjury/falsification of public.documents. Based on the complaint, petitioner has been employed with the DPWH for 37 years. His net worth as indicated in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) amounted to P12,925,590.00. However, upon investigation, it was disclosed that petitioner acquired properties approximately worth P81,701,000.00, which were undeclared in his SAL.
Acting on the complaint, respondent Ombudsman ordered the preventive suspension of petitioner. It found that petitioner had undeclared properties in his SAL amounting to P51,701,000.00. It was also found that petitioner's declared assets appeared lo be grossly disproportionate to his known income. Thus, in its Decision dated June 30, 2004, the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty and was meted the penalty of dismissal from the service with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service.
Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision dated January 12, 2007, the CA affirmed with modification the Ombudsman's ruling. Petitioner received a copy of the said Decision on January 22, 2007. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration on February 6, 2007, which the CA denied in its Resolution dated May 29, 2007. Petitioner's counsel, Atty. Dante F. Vargas (Atty. Vargas), received a copy of the CA Resolution on June 6, 2007.
On June 19, 2007, petitioner, through counsel, Atty. Vargas, filed before this Court a Motion for Additional Time (to file Petition for Review under Rule 45). In our Resolution dated July 9, 2007, we granted the said motion, thereby allowing petitioner an additional period of 30 days within which to file his petition.
On June 23, 2007, petitioner filed his Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the CA Decision. In our Resolution dated August 15, 2007, we required respondents to file their Comment thereon. Respondent PNP:CIDG, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and the Ombudsman filed their, respective motions for extension, which this Court granted in our Resolution dated December 3, 2007. On October 31, 2007, the Ombudsman filed its Comment. On the other hand, the OSG filed its Comment on January 18, 2008. In our Resolutions dated February 6, 2008 and March 10, 2008, we required petitioner, among others, to file his Reply to the respective Comments.
However, petitioner failed to file his Reply. Thus, in our Resolution dated July 28, 2008,, we DENIED the instant Petition for petitioner's failure to obey a lawful order of the Court, pursuant to Section 5(e), Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Likewise, the Court resolved to note without action the agenda report that the copy of our Resolution dated March 10, 2008, which required petitioner to file his Reply to the OSG's Comment, addressed to petitioner's counsel, Atty. Vargas, was returned unserved with the postal carrier's notation "unclaimed."
On September 23, 2008, the aforementioned Resolution became final and executory, and entry of judgment was made.
On October 23, 2009, after more than one year from said entry, petitioner, through counsel, Atty. Vargas, filed before this Court a pleading denominated as "Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Allow Petitioner to File Reply on Respondents' Comment" Atty. Vargas manifested that he lisecl to hold office in his old residence at Unit 2442, Bldg. 24, Guadalupe Mansions, Guadalupe, Makati City; that at the early part of 2008, he, together with his entire family, moved in with his father-in-law, Atty. Arturo C. Mojica, at No. 35 Kalinga St., La Vista Subdivision, Quezon City, to save on expenses; that on June 21, 2008, Sulpicio Lines' vessel M/V Princess of the Stars sank off the coast of Romblon; that being the in-house counsel of Sulpicio Lines, Atty. Vargas moved all his legal work to the Sulpicio Lines Bldg. in Tondo, Manila; that Atty. Vargas failed to receive all the Resolutions issued by this Court requiring petitioner to file his Reply; and that Atty. Vargas also failed to receive a copy of the OSG's Comment. Atty. Vargas came to know only of the Final Order of this Court when petitioner himself informed him of the same. Atty. Vargas now comes before this Court, asking that our Resolution dated July 28, 2008 be reconsidered, and that the case be resolved on the merits. Atty. Vargas admitted that he failed to inform this Court of his change of address.
The instant Motion for Reconsideration is bereft of merit.
It is clear from the records that all the Resolutions/Processes of this Court were sent to petitioner's counsel, Atty. Vargas, in the latter's noted address at Unit 2442, Bldg. 24, Guadalupe Mansions, Guadalupe, Makati City. However, as admitted by Atty. Vargas himself, no notice of the change of address was ever1 filed before this Court. Atty. Vargas failed to inform this Court that he was already holding office in Quezon City. Thus, petitioner's instant Motion for Reconsideration deserves scant consideration.
Well-settled is the rule that when a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon said attorney.[1] Also well-settled is the rule that clients are bound by the actions of their counsels in the conduct of their case. If it were otherwise, and a lawyer's mistake or negligence were admitted as a reason for the reopening of a case, there would be no end to litigation whenever counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned.[2]
If counsel moves to another address without informing the Court of that change, such omission or neglect is inexcusable and will not stay the finality of the decision.[3] This Court cannot be expected to take judicial notice of the new address of a lawyer who has moved or to ascertain, on its own, whether or not the counsel of record has been changed; and who the new counsel could possibly be, or where he probably resides or holds office.[4] This Court was not amiss in seeing to it that its Resolutions were duly served on or furnished to the party-litigants through their respective counsels, and if a party and his counsel had been negligent, as in this case, they must suffer the1 consequences thereof. The Resolution dated July 28, 2008 rendered by this Court has already attained finality; hence, it may no longer be set aside or even reconsidered without violating the provisions of our procedural laws.[5]
There is no denial of due process as long as a person has been given an opportunity to be heard, which was done in this case. If it is true that the resolutions/pleadings were never actually received by Atty. Vargas, the omission was due to his own carelessness. He never informed this Court of his change of address. The petitioner himself never followed up his case with this Court or with his lawyer. Surely, petitioner cannot now seriously argue that this Court has acted arbitrarily against him.[6] Litigants, represented by counsel, should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the1 outcome of their case. They, themselves, should be vigilant and give the necessary assistance to their counsels, for what is at stake is their interest in the case.[7]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED
WITNESS the Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon.
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta and Hon. Jose C. Mendoza, Members, Third Division, this 17th day of February 2010.
G.R. No. 178123 (Romeo G. Panganiban v. Office of the Ombudsman, and Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group'[CIDG]). � On August 20, 2003, respondent Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) filed a complaint against herein petitioner Romeo G. Panganiban (petitioner), who was then the Regional Director of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Region 3, for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) Nos. 6713, 1379 and 3019, and for perjury/falsification of public.documents. Based on the complaint, petitioner has been employed with the DPWH for 37 years. His net worth as indicated in his Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) amounted to P12,925,590.00. However, upon investigation, it was disclosed that petitioner acquired properties approximately worth P81,701,000.00, which were undeclared in his SAL.
Acting on the complaint, respondent Ombudsman ordered the preventive suspension of petitioner. It found that petitioner had undeclared properties in his SAL amounting to P51,701,000.00. It was also found that petitioner's declared assets appeared lo be grossly disproportionate to his known income. Thus, in its Decision dated June 30, 2004, the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty and was meted the penalty of dismissal from the service with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service.
Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision dated January 12, 2007, the CA affirmed with modification the Ombudsman's ruling. Petitioner received a copy of the said Decision on January 22, 2007. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration on February 6, 2007, which the CA denied in its Resolution dated May 29, 2007. Petitioner's counsel, Atty. Dante F. Vargas (Atty. Vargas), received a copy of the CA Resolution on June 6, 2007.
On June 19, 2007, petitioner, through counsel, Atty. Vargas, filed before this Court a Motion for Additional Time (to file Petition for Review under Rule 45). In our Resolution dated July 9, 2007, we granted the said motion, thereby allowing petitioner an additional period of 30 days within which to file his petition.
On June 23, 2007, petitioner filed his Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the CA Decision. In our Resolution dated August 15, 2007, we required respondents to file their Comment thereon. Respondent PNP:CIDG, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and the Ombudsman filed their, respective motions for extension, which this Court granted in our Resolution dated December 3, 2007. On October 31, 2007, the Ombudsman filed its Comment. On the other hand, the OSG filed its Comment on January 18, 2008. In our Resolutions dated February 6, 2008 and March 10, 2008, we required petitioner, among others, to file his Reply to the respective Comments.
However, petitioner failed to file his Reply. Thus, in our Resolution dated July 28, 2008,, we DENIED the instant Petition for petitioner's failure to obey a lawful order of the Court, pursuant to Section 5(e), Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Likewise, the Court resolved to note without action the agenda report that the copy of our Resolution dated March 10, 2008, which required petitioner to file his Reply to the OSG's Comment, addressed to petitioner's counsel, Atty. Vargas, was returned unserved with the postal carrier's notation "unclaimed."
On September 23, 2008, the aforementioned Resolution became final and executory, and entry of judgment was made.
On October 23, 2009, after more than one year from said entry, petitioner, through counsel, Atty. Vargas, filed before this Court a pleading denominated as "Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and to Allow Petitioner to File Reply on Respondents' Comment" Atty. Vargas manifested that he lisecl to hold office in his old residence at Unit 2442, Bldg. 24, Guadalupe Mansions, Guadalupe, Makati City; that at the early part of 2008, he, together with his entire family, moved in with his father-in-law, Atty. Arturo C. Mojica, at No. 35 Kalinga St., La Vista Subdivision, Quezon City, to save on expenses; that on June 21, 2008, Sulpicio Lines' vessel M/V Princess of the Stars sank off the coast of Romblon; that being the in-house counsel of Sulpicio Lines, Atty. Vargas moved all his legal work to the Sulpicio Lines Bldg. in Tondo, Manila; that Atty. Vargas failed to receive all the Resolutions issued by this Court requiring petitioner to file his Reply; and that Atty. Vargas also failed to receive a copy of the OSG's Comment. Atty. Vargas came to know only of the Final Order of this Court when petitioner himself informed him of the same. Atty. Vargas now comes before this Court, asking that our Resolution dated July 28, 2008 be reconsidered, and that the case be resolved on the merits. Atty. Vargas admitted that he failed to inform this Court of his change of address.
The instant Motion for Reconsideration is bereft of merit.
It is clear from the records that all the Resolutions/Processes of this Court were sent to petitioner's counsel, Atty. Vargas, in the latter's noted address at Unit 2442, Bldg. 24, Guadalupe Mansions, Guadalupe, Makati City. However, as admitted by Atty. Vargas himself, no notice of the change of address was ever1 filed before this Court. Atty. Vargas failed to inform this Court that he was already holding office in Quezon City. Thus, petitioner's instant Motion for Reconsideration deserves scant consideration.
Well-settled is the rule that when a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon said attorney.[1] Also well-settled is the rule that clients are bound by the actions of their counsels in the conduct of their case. If it were otherwise, and a lawyer's mistake or negligence were admitted as a reason for the reopening of a case, there would be no end to litigation whenever counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned.[2]
If counsel moves to another address without informing the Court of that change, such omission or neglect is inexcusable and will not stay the finality of the decision.[3] This Court cannot be expected to take judicial notice of the new address of a lawyer who has moved or to ascertain, on its own, whether or not the counsel of record has been changed; and who the new counsel could possibly be, or where he probably resides or holds office.[4] This Court was not amiss in seeing to it that its Resolutions were duly served on or furnished to the party-litigants through their respective counsels, and if a party and his counsel had been negligent, as in this case, they must suffer the1 consequences thereof. The Resolution dated July 28, 2008 rendered by this Court has already attained finality; hence, it may no longer be set aside or even reconsidered without violating the provisions of our procedural laws.[5]
There is no denial of due process as long as a person has been given an opportunity to be heard, which was done in this case. If it is true that the resolutions/pleadings were never actually received by Atty. Vargas, the omission was due to his own carelessness. He never informed this Court of his change of address. The petitioner himself never followed up his case with this Court or with his lawyer. Surely, petitioner cannot now seriously argue that this Court has acted arbitrarily against him.[6] Litigants, represented by counsel, should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the1 outcome of their case. They, themselves, should be vigilant and give the necessary assistance to their counsels, for what is at stake is their interest in the case.[7]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED
WITNESS the Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon.
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta and Hon. Jose C. Mendoza, Members, Third Division, this 17th day of February 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Karen and Kristy Fishing Industry v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 172760-61, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 243,250.
[2] GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Principe, G.R. No. 141484, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA555.562.
[3] Bonaventure Mining Corporation v, V.l.L. Mines, Incorporated, G.R. No. 174918, August 13, 200S, 562 SCRA 211,222.
[4] Supra note 1, at 249.
[5] Supra note 2, at 568.
[6] Antonio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-35434, November 9, 1988, 167 SCRA 127, 133.
[7] Garrucho v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 143791, January 14, 2005, 448 SCRA 165, 173, citing Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 413 (1997).
