Henry Ong Lay Hin vs. People of the Philippines

Posted Jan 26, 2015

By Anonymous

7 min read

Case Title and Citation

Henry Ong Lay Hin, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals (2nd Division), Hon. Gabriel T. Ingles, as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 58, Cebu City, and the People of the Philippines, respondents.
G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015
Supreme Court - Second Division
Ponente: Justice Leonen

Facts

On February 8, 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, Cebu City convicted petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin 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. The court imposed an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Ong filed a Motion for Reconsideration, denied by RTC Order dated March 31, 2000. Ong filed a Notice of Appeal and the RTC transmitted the records to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On November 29, 2001, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. The CA denied Ong’s Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 14, 2003.
The CA issued an Entry of Judgment declaring the case final and executory as of May 15, 2003. The CA relied on a registry return card indicating Ong’s former counsel, Zosa & Quijano Law Offices (addressed to Atty. Francis M. Zosa), received a copy of the CA Resolution on April 29, 2003.
The RTC received the original records, the CA Decision, and the CA Entry of Judgment on March 22, 2004 and ordered Ong’s arrest; a warrant issued and commitment order followed.
Ong was arrested on February 12, 2010 in Pasay City at about 10:30 p.m.; he was initially committed to Cebu City Jail and later served his sentence at the New Bilibid Prison.
On May 6, 2010 Ong filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with application for preliminary and/or mandatory injunction before the Supreme Court, alleging his counsel never received the CA Resolution and was grossly negligent.
The People filed Comments asserting the registry return card carries a presumption of accuracy and that the negligence of counsel binds the client; the People also opposed Ong’s request for preliminary injunction and bail.
Petitioner submitted affidavits from his wife and mother-in-law asserting former counsel told them the law office did not receive the CA Resolution; the Supreme Court found these affidavits inadmissible hearsay.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in issuing the Entry of Judgment declaring the CA Decision final and executory?
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest and commitment order against petitioner?
Whether petitioner Henry Ong Lay Hin’s former counsel was grossly negligent so as to deprive petitioner of due process and relieve him from the consequences of counsel’s negligence?

Ruling

No - The Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion; the registry return card was presumptively accurate and petitioner failed to rebut it.
No - The trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion; once the CA issued the Entry of Judgment and remitted the records, the RTC had the duty to execute the judgment.
No - Petitioner’s former counsel was not shown to have been grossly negligent to the extent of depriving petitioner of due process; the general rule that counsel’s negligence binds the client applies.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

Presumption of regularity in registry return card: The Court treated the registry return card as the official record evidencing service by mail and held it “carries the presumption that it was prepared in the course of official duties that have been regularly performed” and is presumed accurate unless rebutted (citing Eureka Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. Valencia, 610 Phil. 444, 453–454 (2009)). Petitioner failed to rebut this presumption.
Hearsay exclusion of lay affidavits: Petitioner’s affidavits by his wife and mother-in-law claiming that counsel said the office never received the Resolution were excluded as hearsay under Rules of Court, Rule 130, Section 36 (testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded).
Finality and entry of judgment: Under the Rules of Court, if no appeal or motion is filed within the reglementary period the judgment or final resolution shall be entered (Rule 51, Section 10 as cited). The Court found the 15-day appeal period began to run from the registry return card date of April 29, 2003 and lapsed on May 15, 2003, rendering the CA Decision final and executory.
Duty to execute judgment: Once the CA issued the Entry of Judgment and remitted the records, the RTC had the duty to execute the judgment; issuance of arrest warrant and commitment order was within the trial court’s duty and not a grave abuse of discretion.
Agency rule re counsel’s negligence: The general rule is that negligence of counsel binds the client, including procedural mistakes (citing Bejarasco, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 159781, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 328). The exception is where counsel’s negligence is so gross and reckless that it amounts to deprivation of due process. The Court held petitioner did not meet the clear and convincing standard to show gross negligence; further, the client has a duty to monitor the status of his case, especially when an unreasonably long time has passed (citing Bejarasco).
Length of inaction: The Court emphasized petitioner waited almost seven years from the CA Resolution denial to file the present petition, and that such delay should have alerted petitioner to inquire of counsel; the Court relied on prior pronouncements that clients must be vigilant about their interests.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

Registry return cards are prima facie evidence of receipt and are presumed accurate absent competent rebuttal (Eureka Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. Valencia).
The negligence of counsel binds the client; only gross or reckless negligence that clearly deprives the client of due process will relieve the client of this rule (Bejarasco, Jr. v. People).
A client has a duty to monitor the status of his case and to follow up with counsel, particularly where an unreasonably long time has elapsed.
Finality of judgment and entry rules: where no timely appeal is perfected, the judgment becomes final and the clerk shall enter it (Rules of Court provisions cited in the decision).
Hearsay rule: affidavits of third parties recounting what counsel said are inadmissible to rebut official service records (Rules of Court, Rule 130, sec. 36).

Disposition

The Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus is DISMISSED.
The Entry of Judgment declaring the CA Decision final and executory as of May 15, 2003, the RTC’s issuance of an arrest warrant, and the commitment order were upheld; petitioner remains subject to the conviction and its execution.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

None stated; the decision was authored by Justice Leonen and concurred in by the other members of the Second Division as listed in the decision.

Significance / Notes

Clients must remain vigilant and monitor the status of their cases; reliance solely on counsel without periodic inquiry is insufficient where long delays occur.
A registry return card indicating receipt by counsel constitutes strong prima facie evidence of notice; rebuttal requires competent evidence, not hearsay.
The decision reaffirms the principle that ordinary negligence of counsel binds the client; relief is available only upon clear and convincing proof of gross, reckless, or malicious conduct that objectively deprived the client of due process.
Practically, the case underscores the limited circumstances in which courts will set aside finality based on counsel error and the high burden on petitioners claiming deprivation of counsel-generated notice.
Procedural citations relied on in the decision include Rules of Court provisions on entry of judgment and periods to appeal (as cited by the Court) and precedents such as Bejarasco, Jr. v. People and Eureka Personnel & Management Services, Inc. v. Valencia.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.