G.R. No. 192866 - PEDRO G. RESURRECCION, JOSEPH COMETA AND CRISEFORO LITERATO, JR., VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan convicted Resurreccion and ordered him to pay a fine of P3,000.00. The petitioners sought, but failed, to obtain a reconsideration. [16] Hence, this present petition. The Petitioners Arguments The petitioners contend that the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in convicting them based only on the evidence presented by the prosecution. They attribute their failure to present evidence to their former counsels ( Atty. Manuel Corpuzs ) negligence and claim that they were denied due process of law. They argue that Atty. Corpuzs failure to inform them about the developments affecting their case and the scheduled hearing for the reception of evidence resulting in the waiver of presentation of defense evidence, as they were not able to present evidence in their behalf constitutes gross negligence that warrants the application of the exception to the general rule that negligence and dereliction of duty of the counsel bind the client. [17] The petitioners likewise argue that the Sandiganbayan gravely erred when it denied their motion for reconsideration on the mere technical ground that their motion lacked the required notice of hearing. They insist that the 1st Division of the Sandiganbayan committed an oversight as there was, in fact, a notice of hearing attached to their motion for reconsideration. The OSPs Comment The Office of the Special Prosecutor ( OSP ) prays for the denial of the petition for lack of merit. The OSP submits: (1) that the client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel; (2) that the circumstances, which would justify an exception to the rule, are not present in the present case; (3) that the allegedly negligent act of a counsel could not be categorized as constituting gross negligence; (4) that the petitioners claim of gross negligence was belatedly raised; (5) that the petitioners are not without fault as they failed to periodically keep in touch with their counsel; and (6) that the denial of the petitioners motion for reconsideration was in accordance with the rules. Issues Raised There are only two issues presented for our resolution: (1) Whether the negligence of the former counsel of the petitioners in allegedly not informing them about the status of their case, resulting in their failure to present evidence and, consequently, to the waiver of their right to present evidence, is a valid ground to set aside the judgment for conviction. (2) Whether the 1 st Division of the Sandiganbayan correctly denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration on the ground that the motion did not contain a notice of hearing. Our Ruling We find the petition devoid of merit. We note, at the outset, that the petitioners do not question the correctness of the Sandiganbayans finding of guilt based on the merits of the case. In fact, the petitioners never denied their non-compliance of the government auditing rules and regulations, specifically the lack of public bidding and supporting documents. In their petit