Henry Ong Lay Hin v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Gabriel T. Ingles, and the People of the Philippines
State the identity of the petitioner and the respondents in this case.
Show Answer
The petitioner is Henry Ong Lay Hin. The respondents are (1) the Court of Appeals (Second Division), (2) Hon. Gabriel T. Ingles in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, Cebu City, and (3) the People of the Philippines. This identification is factual and critical because the petition challenged actions by both an appellate tribunal (the Court of Appeals) and the trial court (Judge Ingles), while the People of the Philippines defended the validity of the criminal conviction and the subsequent execution of the judgment.
Summarize, in chronological order, the procedural history from trial court decision to the filing of the petition before the Supreme Court.
Show Answer
The procedural history begins with the RTC, Branch 58, Cebu City rendering a Decision dated February 8, 2000, convicting Henry Ong and Leo Obsioma, Jr. of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code for failing to pay Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company a total of ₱344,752.20 under a trust receipt agreement. They were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment (minimum: 4 years, 2 months, 1 day of prision correccional; maximum: 17 years, 4 months, 1 day of reclusion temporal). Ong moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied on March 31, 2000. Ong filed a Notice of Appeal; the case was transmitted to the Court of Appeals. On November 29, 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision. The Court of Appeals denied Ong's Motions for Reconsideration on April 14, 2003. A registry return card indicated Ong's former counsel received a copy of that Resolution on April 29, 2003, and the Court of Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment declaring finality as of May 15, 2003. The appellate court remitted the original records to the RTC, which, upon receipt on March 22, 2004, ordered Ong’s arrest and issued a warrant. Ong was arrested on February 12, 2010. On May 6, 2010, Ong filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus (with application for preliminary/mandatory injunction) before the Supreme Court contesting the finality and the execution of the judgment.
What offense was Ong convicted of, under what statutory provision, and what was the factual basis for the conviction?
Show Answer
Ong was convicted of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. The factual basis, as found by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, was that Ong and his co-accused failed to pay Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company the total amount of ₱344,752.20 in violation of their trust receipt agreement with the bank. The trust receipt agreement and the failure to pay constituted the elements supporting the estafa conviction under the cited provision.
What sentence did the RTC impose upon Ong and his co-accused?
Show Answer
The RTC imposed an indeterminate penalty on Ong and his co-accused: a minimum of four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional; and a maximum of seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. The judgment and its indeterminate nature were part of the conviction affirmed by the Court of Appeals and later declared final and executory.
How did the Court of Appeals determine that Ong’s conviction became final and executory, and what specific evidence did it rely upon?
Show Answer
The Court of Appeals declared Ong’s conviction final and executory by issuing an Entry of Judgment which treated the Date of Receipt shown on the registry return card as the operative date for commencement of the 15-day period to appeal. The CA relied on the registry return card corresponding to the mail sent to Ong’s former counsel, Zosa & Quijano Law Offices, which indicated receipt of the Court of Appeals’ Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration on April 29, 2003. The CA therefore computed finality as May 15, 2003 (15 days after April 29, 2003), and issued the Entry of Judgment accordingly.
Describe the timeline and circumstances of Ong’s arrest.
Show Answer
After the Court of Appeals issued the Entry of Judgment and remitted the original records, the RTC received the records, Decision, and Entry of Judgment on March 22, 2004 and issued an arrest warrant. Ong, however, was not arrested until February 12, 2010—almost six years later—when he was apprehended at Ralphs Wines Museum in Pasay City at about 10:30 p.m. He was initially ordered committed to the Cebu City Jail but was later serving his sentence at the New Bilibid Prison. The long lapse between issuance of the warrant and his arrest is one factual circumstance emphasized in the case, and it was part of Ong's narrative when he later sought relief from the Supreme Court.
What remedies did Ong seek in his petition before the Supreme Court?
Show Answer
Ong sought multiple forms of relief: (1) a Writ of Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus to set aside the Court of Appeals’ Entry of Judgment and related orders; (2) issuance of a Writ of Preliminary and/or Mandatory Injunction to secure his release from what he called illegal imprisonment; and (3) in the alternative, leave to post bail for provisional liberty while the Supreme Court resolved his petition. He grounded his primary contention on the alleged nonreceipt by his former counsel of the Court of Appeals’ Resolution denying reconsideration, arguing that therefore the CA Decision never became final and executory. Alternatively, he alleged gross negligence on the part of his counsel that deprived him of due process.
What were the principal arguments advanced by the People of the Philippines in opposition to Ong’s petition?
Show Answer
The People argued principally that the registry return card is an official record evidencing service by mail and carries the presumption of accuracy because it was prepared in the course of regularly performed official duties. The registry return card indicated counsel received the CA Resolution on April 29, 2003; thus the 15-day appeal period began then and Ong failed to perfect an appeal, rendering the CA Decision final and executory. The People also maintained that even if counsel did not receive the Resolution, the negligence of counsel binds the client. Regarding Ong's prayer for injunctive relief, the People contended Ong failed to point out specific instances of grave abuse of discretion by the CA or the trial court, and thus was not entitled to the writ. Finally, the People urged that Ong should not be admitted to bail because his conviction was already final, removing the uncertainty of guilt or innocence that typically underlies bail considerations.
What three specific issues did the Supreme Court identify for resolution?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court framed three distinct issues for resolution: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Entry of Judgment; (2) Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest and the commitment order against petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin; and (3) Whether petitioner’s former counsel was grossly negligent.
Define “grave abuse of discretion” as used by the Supreme Court in this decision.
Show Answer
The Supreme Court defined "grave abuse of discretion" as the "arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or a capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or a refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law." This definition establishes a high threshold: the exercise of power must be either arbitrary/capricious or so tainted by passion or prejudice that it equates to a legal abdication or abuse.
How did the Court rule on whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Entry of Judgment?
Show Answer
The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the Entry of Judgment. The Supreme Court found that the registry return card, which indicated receipt of the CA's Resolution by Ong’s former counsel on April 29, 2003, is an official record presumed accurate unless rebutted. Ong failed to rebut the presumption; the evidence he offered (affidavits of his wife and mother-in-law) was inadmissible hearsay. Thus the CA properly treated the Judgment as final and executory as of May 15, 2003, and its issuance of the Entry of Judgment was not a grave abuse of discretion.
Explain the evidentiary status of the registry return card and how the Court treated it in this case.
Show Answer
The registry return card was treated as an official record evidencing service by mail. The Court cited precedent indicating such a card "carries the presumption that it was prepared in the course of official duties that have been regularly performed" and therefore is presumed accurate unless rebutted by competent evidence. In Ong’s case, the registry return card indicated that Ong's former counsel received the CA Resolution on April 29, 2003. Because Ong produced only inadmissible hearsay to contradict the card and did not present admissible evidence to rebut the presumption, the Supreme Court accepted the registry return card as proof of receipt for purposes of computing the appeal period and finality.
Why were the affidavits of Ong’s wife and mother-in-law considered inadmissible?
Show Answer
The affidavits of Mary Ann Ong (wife) and Nila Mapilit (mother-in-law) were ruled inadmissible as hearsay under Rule 130, Section 36 of the Rules of Court, which provides that a witness can testify only to facts of personal knowledge and hearsay is excluded. Their statements that Ong's former counsel told them that the law office had not received a copy of the Resolution were not based on the affiants' personal knowledge of receipt, but rather communications from counsel (i.e., out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted). Because the affidavits did not present admissible evidence directly contradicting the registry return card, they failed to rebut the presumption of accuracy attached to that official record.
What specific Rule of Court did the Supreme Court cite to determine the date when a judgment becomes executory?
Show Answer
The Court cited Rule 51, Section 10 of the Rules of Court on "Judgment." This provision states that if no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in the Rules, the judgment or final resolution shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of judgments, and that the date when the judgment or final resolution becomes executory shall be deemed as the date of its entry. The Court applied this rule in conjunction with Rule 122, Section 6 (on when an appeal must be taken) to compute finality based on the registry return card's date of receipt.
How did the Court compute the date of finality of the Court of Appeals’ Decision?
Show Answer
The Court treated April 29, 2003—the date indicated on the registry return card as the date Ong’s former counsel received the CA Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration—as the date of notice. From that date, the 15-day period to appeal under Rule 122, Section 6 commenced. Since Ong did not file a timely appeal within the 15-day reglementary period, the 15-day period expired on May 15, 2003. Thus, the Court concluded the CA Decision became final and executory on May 15, 2003, and the CA properly entered judgment accordingly.
Did the Supreme Court find that the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it issued the warrant of arrest and commitment order? Why or why not?
Show Answer
No, the Supreme Court found that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion. Once the Court of Appeals had issued its Entry of Judgment declaring the CA Decision final and executory, and remitted the original records to the RTC, it became the duty of the trial court to execute the judgment. The RTC received the remitted records on March 22, 2004 and accordingly ordered the arrest of Ong. Because the Entry of Judgment was valid under the Court's determination (given the unrebutted registry return card and the lapse of the appeal period), the trial court acted within its duty and did not commit grave abuse in issuing the arrest warrant and commitment order.
What is the general rule concerning the negligence of counsel and the client, as stated in this decision?
Show Answer
The general rule, restated by the Supreme Court in this decision, is that the negligence of counsel binds the client; this includes mistakes in applying procedural rules. Clients are ordinarily charged with the consequences of their counsel's failings, because counsel acts as an agent entrusted to manage the client's litigation and the client is expected to supervise counsel at least minimally. The Court underscored that this is the default allocation of risk: clients bear some degree of error because they choose and engage counsel and can monitor their cases.
What is the exception to the rule that counsel’s negligence binds the client, and how did the Court describe that exception?
Show Answer
The exception is when the counsel's negligence is so gross—almost bordering on recklessness and utter incompetence—that it deprives the client of due process of law. The Court described the exception as requiring that the negligence be palpable and maliciously exercised such that the client was maliciously deprived of information and could not have acted to protect his interests. There must be a clear and convincing showing that the counsel's error was both egregious and not accompanied by the client's own negligence. Only under those circumstances will the client's due process rights be considered violated to a degree warranting relief.
Which prior case did the Supreme Court rely upon to illustrate the rule about counsel’s negligence and the duty of the client to monitor the status of the case?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court relied on Bejarasco, Jr. v. People (G.R. No. 159781, Feb. 2, 2011) to illustrate the doctrine that the negligence of counsel binds the client and the corollary duty of the client to be vigilant in monitoring the status of his case. Bejarasco established that the client must keep in contact with counsel and cannot merely rely on reassurances, especially when an "unreasonably long time" has lapsed. The Court applied the reasoning from Bejarasco to Ong’s case, emphasizing the client's duty to be informed and proactive.
How did the Supreme Court apply the Bejarasco precedent to the facts of Ong’s case?
Show Answer
The Court applied Bejarasco by noting that Ong took almost seven years (approximately 84 months) from the CA's issuance of the Resolution denying reconsideration to file a petition before the Supreme Court. In Bejarasco the Court faulted the petitioner for delay (16 months after entry of judgment and 22 months after the trial court's decision) and emphasized the duty of the client to monitor developments. Here, the much longer delay reinforced the conclusion that Ong failed to fulfill his duty to be vigilant, and that the negligence allegedly attributable to counsel did not reach the threshold of gross negligence that would relieve Ong of the consequences of inaction. The Court thus concluded Ong was "undeserving of any sympathy" given his prolonged inaction.
What did the Court say about the client’s duty to be in contact with counsel?
Show Answer
The Court stated that it is the client's duty to be in contact with his lawyer from time to time to be informed of the progress and developments of his case. Merely relying on the lawyer’s bare reassurances that everything is being taken care of is insufficient. The client must exercise reasonable vigilance, particularly when the case takes an unreasonably long time to resolve. If the client fails in this duty, the client must bear the consequences of adverse judgments rendered against him.
What standard did the Court require for a showing that counsel’s negligence was so gross as to deprive the client of due process?
Show Answer
The Court required a clear and convincing showing that counsel's negligence was so gross—bordering on recklessness and utter incompetence—that it maliciously deprived the client of material information necessary to protect his rights. The negligence must be palpable and maliciously exercised, and it should be sufficiently egregious to also be the basis for disciplinary action against counsel. Importantly, the client's own possible negligence must not have contributed to the deprivation of due process; if the client was also negligent in failing to monitor his case, relief is less likely.
Did the Supreme Court find counsel’s conduct grossly negligent in this case? Explain.
Show Answer
No. The Supreme Court did not find counsel’s conduct grossly negligent. The Court accepted the registry return card as unrebutted evidence that counsel received the CA Resolution on April 29, 2003, and found no admissible proof that counsel was unaware. Even assuming counsel did not receive the Resolution, the Court emphasized Ong’s protracted inaction (taking almost seven years to seek relief) and his failure to monitor the status of his case. The Court concluded that Ong's allegations did not demonstrate the sort of gross, reckless, or malicious dereliction required to establish deprivation of due process that would excuse the general rule that counsel’s negligence binds the client.
How did the Court treat Ong’s alternative request for bail while his petition was pending?
Show Answer
The decision discusses the People’s argument opposing bail: since Ong’s conviction was already final and executory, the usual justification for bail—uncertainty as to guilt or innocence—was absent, making bail generally inappropriate. The Court ultimately dismissed Ong’s overall petition and did not grant the alternative relief of bail. The People had argued, and the Court accepted in context, that final conviction ordinarily precludes bail because the uncertainty necessary to justify provisional liberty no longer exists.
What reasoning did the Court give for rejecting sympathy toward Ong given the lapse of time before he sought relief?
Show Answer
The Court reasoned that Ong's nearly seven-year delay in seeking relief after the CA's Resolution was indicative of his failure to discharge the duty of vigilance over his case. The Court invoked Bejarasco: when an unreasonably long time lapses, the client should be alerted to the need to inquire further. Ong’s extensive delay and the fact that he was arrested outside his province suggested either inaction on his part or counsel subterfuge; either way, the Court concluded Ong failed to provide a compelling, admissible showing of gross counsel negligence. Therefore, Ong was undeserving of equitable sympathy that would warrant overturning finality or granting extraordinary relief.
What was the final disposition of Ong’s petition?
Show Answer
The Supreme Court dismissed Ong's Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus. The Court concluded there was no grave abuse of discretion by either the Court of Appeals or the trial court, and that Ong failed to show his counsel's negligence was so gross as to constitute a deprivation of due process. Accordingly, the petition was denied, and the Entry of Judgment and the trial court's orders stood.
According to the decision, what duty does the trial court have once the Court of Appeals issues an Entry of Judgment and remits the records?
Show Answer
Once the Court of Appeals issues an Entry of Judgment declaring a conviction final and executory and remits the original records to the trial court, it becomes the duty of the trial court to execute the judgment. In the present case, after receiving the remitted records on March 22, 2004, the RTC was obliged to carry out the execution of the sentence, which included ordering Ong’s arrest. This duty justified the issuance of the arrest warrant and commitment order by the trial court, provided the appellate Entry of Judgment was proper.
What does the Court’s discussion reveal about the balance between client autonomy in choosing counsel and protection against counsel’s incompetence?
Show Answer
The Court emphasized client autonomy: clients choose their counsel and bear responsibility for those choices, including the consequences of ordinary errors. The state does not guarantee that a client will always receive superb legal service; hence, some degree of counsel error must be borne by the client. At the same time, the Court recognized a protection against extreme counsel incompetence: where counsel's negligence is so gross that it deprives the client of due process, the client may be relieved of the consequences. The balance struck by the Court favors client responsibility and the preservation of finality, while still permitting relief in the exceptional circumstance of gross and malicious counsel dereliction.
What evidentiary showing would, under the Court’s reasoning, be necessary to overcome the presumption attached to a registry return card?
Show Answer
Under the Court’s reasoning, to overcome the presumption of accuracy attached to a registry return card, the petitioner would need admissible evidence—credible, direct, and probative—that rebuts the official record. Mere hearsay affidavits or secondhand statements would not suffice. The petitioner would need to present competent evidence demonstrating that the registry return card was inaccurate or that the addressee did not receive the document, such that the presumption of regularity is successfully rebutted. The Court stressed that Ong failed to meet this burden, offering only inadmissible hearsay statements.
If counsel had indeed never received the Resolution, why did the Court still place responsibility on Ong?
Show Answer
Even assuming counsel never received the Resolution, the Court placed responsibility on Ong because clients have a duty to monitor the status of their cases, particularly when an unreasonably long time elapses without developments. The Court required Ong to have taken steps to inquire about his case long before seven years had passed. The Court found that Ong's prolonged inaction demonstrated a failure to fulfill this duty; the client's negligence in not keeping informed diminishes the force of any claim that counsel's negligence alone caused the deprivation of due process. Therefore, Ong could not be excused solely on the basis of counsel nonreceipt where the client also failed to act.
Discuss how hearsay rules influenced the outcome of this case.
Show Answer
Hearsay rules played a pivotal role. The only evidence Ong produced to contradict the registry return card were affidavits stating that his former counsel told his wife and mother-in-law that the law office did not receive the Resolution. Those affidavits were hearsay because the affiants lacked personal knowledge — they were repeating what counsel allegedly said. Under Rule 130, Section 36 of the Rules of Court, hearsay is inadmissible. Because Ong's submitted evidence was inadmissible on hearsay grounds, he failed to rebut the presumption of regularity or accuracy attached to the registry return card. The inadmissibility of his proffered evidence thereby undercut his claim and substantially influenced the Court’s decision to deny relief.
How did the Court characterize the level of negligence that would justify relieving a client from the consequences of counsel’s default?
Show Answer
The Court characterized the requisite level of negligence as "so gross, almost bordering on recklessness and utter incompetence" that due process is violated. The negligence must be palpable, maliciously exercised, and sufficiently egregious that it can legitimately support both relief for the client and disciplinary action against counsel. This is an exacting standard: ordinary negligence or even inexcusable omission by counsel is insufficient unless it reaches this very high level of dereliction.
What observations did the Court make about the practicality of the client monitoring counsel’s performance?
Show Answer
The Court acknowledged that closely monitoring counsel may be impractical in many circumstances, and that the state cannot guarantee counsel will always provide the level of service a client expects. Nonetheless, the Court emphasized that some degree of error must be borne by the client, particularly when the client can afford to seek competent counsel and exercise vigilance. The Court suggested that client autonomy in selecting counsel weighs in favor of requiring clients to assume certain risks associated with counsel performance, rather than a presumption that the state will intervene to correct every unsatisfactory legal service.
In the Court’s view, what role does the possibility of disciplinary action against counsel play in evaluating claims of gross negligence?
Show Answer
The Court indicated that the kind of negligence warranting relief from a conviction should be the sort that is sufficiently egregious that it would also be a basis for disciplinary action against counsel. In other words, the degree of neglect that would excuse a client's inaction must be more than ordinary mistakes; it must be of such a level that it could justify professional discipline. This linkage serves to ensure that the exception to the rule (that counsel’s error binds the client) is reserved for truly severe conduct rather than ordinary malpractice or tactical errors.
Could Ong’s pleadings have succeeded if he had presented different, admissible evidence? Based on the Court’s standards, what would that evidence need to show?
Show Answer
Yes, theoretically, Ong’s pleadings could have succeeded had he presented admissible evidence meeting the high standards articulated by the Court. Such evidence would need to credibly and directly rebut the registry return card’s presumption of regularity—e.g., a reliable, non-hearsay record from the law office showing no receipt, documentary proof of misaddressed mail, or direct testimony from counsel under oath bearing personal knowledge that the Resolution had not been received and explaining why. Moreover, the evidence would have to show that counsel's conduct was grossly negligent—reckless, malicious, or so incompetent as to deprive Ong of meaningful notice—without significant fault on Ong's part for failing to monitor the case. Only a clear and convincing factual showing of that magnitude would meet the Court’s stringent exception.
Explain how Rule 122, Section 6 interacts with the presumption of the registry return card in this decision.
Show Answer
Rule 122, Section 6 provides that an appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation of judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from, and specifies how the period is computed when motions are filed. The Court used the registry return card as evidence of the date counsel received notice of the CA's Resolution; under Rule 122, that date triggers the 15-day period to perfect an appeal. Because the registry return card was presumed accurate, the Court treated April 29, 2003 as the operative date of notice, and therefore the 15-day appeal period expired on May 15, 2003, rendering the CA decision final per Rule 51, Section 10. Thus, Rule 122 supplied the temporal rule while the registry return card supplied the factual date that started the rule’s clock.
What did the Court say about the plausibility of counsel’s alleged inaction being a “subterfuge” to allow the client to evade penalty?
Show Answer
The Court remarked that one alternative explanation for counsel's alleged failure to act could be that the counsel's purported inaction was a subterfuge designed to enable the client to avoid deserved penalty. While the Court did not find or make a conclusive factual determination of subterfuge, it noted the possibility in evaluating the totality of circumstances and the client's long inaction. The Court insisted that, absent admissible evidence proving counsel's nonreceipt or gross negligence, it could not accept claims that would allow a vacillation of finality without compelling proof. This skepticism informed the Court’s reluctance to overturn finality on the present record.
How does this decision illustrate the relationship between finality of judgment and the courts’ willingness to grant extraordinary relief?
Show Answer
The decision underscores that finality of judgment is a foundational value in the judicial system and that courts are generally reluctant to grant extraordinary relief (such as certiorari or mandamus to set aside an Entry of Judgment) unless compelling justification exists. The Court demanded robust, admissible proof of grave error or gross counsel incompetence to disturb finality. The high threshold protects the integrity of convictions once appellate remedies are exhausted and guards against reopening final judgments based on weak or inadmissible evidence. Thus, extraordinary relief is available but only in exceptional cases where procedural irregularities or counsel derelictions genuinely undermine due process.
Identify and explain any policy considerations the Court referenced in upholding the rule that counsel’s negligence binds the client.
Show Answer
The Court referenced several policy considerations: (1) the impracticality of constant judicial oversight into every attorney-client relationship; (2) respect for client autonomy in choosing counsel and bearing the attendant risks, which is more desirable than assuming state omniscience in matching clients with ideal lawyers; (3) preserving the Court's ability to perform its social functions by not entertaining every complaint about poor lawyering; and (4) maintaining finality of judgments to prevent endless litigation. These considerations support placing the burden of ordinary counsel error on the client, while still preserving a narrow exception for truly egregious counsel misconduct that amounts to a deprivation of due process.
Suppose Ong had acted within a few weeks after the Entry of Judgment and filed his petition—how might the Court’s tenor or analysis have differed, based on the decision’s reasoning?
Show Answer
While we cannot speculate beyond the content of the decision, the Court’s reasoning suggests that a prompt action by Ong would have strengthened any claim that counsel’s negligence alone deprived him of due process. A much shorter delay would undercut the Court’s reliance on Ong’s own failure to monitor the case and might have made it more likely the Court would scrutinize whether counsel had indeed been grossly negligent. The Court emphasized that protracted inaction erodes sympathy; conversely, prompt action might signal that the client exercised reasonable vigilance and shift closer to meeting the exceptional standard required to excuse counsel error. Nevertheless, even a timely filing would still require admissible evidence that counsel materially failed in a grossly negligent manner.
What lessons does this case teach a litigant about communicating with and supervising their counsel?
Show Answer
The case teaches that litigants must maintain regular communication with counsel, periodically check on the status of their cases, and not passively rely solely on reassurances. If matters appear to take an unusually long time, it is incumbent upon the client to inquire promptly and take action if counsel fails to act. Failing to do so can forfeit opportunities to appeal or to seek appropriate remedies, and the client will likely bear the consequences even where counsel is negligent. In short, active, vigilant supervision is a practical safeguard against procedural forfeitures and also important if the client later seeks equitable relief based on counsel's alleged failings.
Summarize in one paragraph the core holding of the Supreme Court in this case.
Show Answer
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals and the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in declaring Ong’s conviction final and executory and in executing the judgment; the registry return card indicating receipt by Ong’s former counsel was presumed accurate and unrebutted by admissible evidence, and the general rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client applies—relief is warranted only where counsel’s negligence is so gross as to deprive the client of due process, a standard Ong did not meet, particularly in light of his nearly seven-year delay in seeking relief and his failure to monitor the status of his case.