Negligence of lawyer binds the client
Dear PAO,
May I know the rules as to the effect of a counsel’s failure and negligence in appealing a criminal case vis-à-vis the client’s right to appeal? Norma
Dear Norma,
It has been a standing legal policy that the negligence of counsel binds the client. In fact, as elucidated in the case of Lay Hin vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. 191972, Jan. 26, 2015, Ponente: Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen), the Supreme Court held that the negligence of a counsel binds the client even with respect to mistakes in the application of procedural rules, viz:
“The general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client, even mistakes in the application of procedural rules. The exception to the rule is ‘when the reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law.’”
The agency created between a counsel and a client is a highly fiduciary relationship. A counsel becomes the eyes and ears in the prosecution or defense of his or her client’s case. This is inevitable because a competent counsel is expected to understand the law that frames the strategies he or she employs in a chosen legal remedy. Counsel carefully lays down the procedure that will effectively and efficiently achieve his or her client’s interests. Counsel should also have a grasp of the facts, and among the plethora of details, he or she chooses which are relevant for the legal cause of action or defense being pursued.
It is these indispensable skills, among others, that a client engages. Of course, there are counsels who have both wisdom and experience that give their clients great advantage. There are still, however, counsels who wander in their mediocrity whether consciously or unconsciously.
The state does not guarantee to the client that they will receive the kind of service that they expect. Through this court, we set the standard on competence and integrity through the application requirements and our disciplinary powers. Whether counsel discharges his or her role to the satisfaction of the client is a matter that will ideally be necessarily monitored but, at present, is too impractical.
Besides, finding good counsel is also the responsibility of the client especially when he or she can afford to do so. Upholding client autonomy in these choices is infinitely a better policy choice than assuming that the state is omniscient. Some degree of error must, therefore, be borne by the client who does have the capacity to make choices.
This is one of the bases of the doctrine that the error of counsel visits the client. This court will cease to perform its social functions if it provides succor to all who are not satisfied with the services of their counsel.
But, there is an exception to this doctrine of binding agency between counsel and client. This is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, almost bordering on recklessness and utter incompetence, that we can safely conclude that the due process rights of the client were violated. Even so, there must be a clear and convincing showing that the client was so maliciously deprived of information that he or she could not have acted to protect his or her interests. The error of counsel must have been both palpable yet maliciously exercised that it should viably be the basis for disciplinary action.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).
Applying the foregoing, it is indubitable that the failure of a counsel through negligence in appealing a client’s case binds the latter. As discussed, it is only when such negligence was so gross that the utter incompetence of the counsel results in the violation of the client’s right due process that the exception to the general rule may be applied.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net