Scribd
Upload
76 views1 page

Suarez vs. CA, G.R. No. 91133, March 22, 1993

The case involves a petitioner who was charged with multiple criminal cases for violating the Bouncing Check Law. The petitioner failed to appear for several hearings due to being married and living with her partner. Her counsel stopped appearing and had another lawyer make a special appearance. The petitioner was eventually arrested. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was deprived of due process since her counsel was negligent. The Court of Appeals and trial court decisions were set aside and the trial court was directed to reopen the criminal cases.

Uploaded by

Neil Flores
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
76 views1 page

Suarez vs. CA, G.R. No. 91133, March 22, 1993

The case involves a petitioner who was charged with multiple criminal cases for violating the Bouncing Check Law. The petitioner failed to appear for several hearings due to being married and living with her partner. Her counsel stopped appearing and had another lawyer make a special appearance. The petitioner was eventually arrested. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was deprived of due process since her counsel was negligent. The Court of Appeals and trial court decisions were set aside and the trial court was directed to reopen the criminal cases.

Uploaded by

Neil Flores
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No. 91133. March 22, 1993.

ROMINA M. SUAREZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH LXI, ANGELES CITY, respondents.

Ponente:
MELO, Justice

Facts:
- Case at bar is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 17488 and to direct respondent trial court to reopen the joint trial of
Criminal Cases several criminal cases mentioned in the 2nd fact
- On May, petitioner was charged in Criminal Cases No. 7284-7296, and No. 7302-7303, violating the
Bouncing Check Law. 4 months later, petitioner was again charged in the same court with the same
offense in Criminal Case No. 7650.
- Several hearings were held, yet the petitioner herself failed to make an appearance on the account
that she had contracted marriage and resided in her partner’s domicile. During these hearings,
petitioner’s counsel, Atty. San Luis appeared as her representative. It wasn’t long until Atty. San
Luis stopped appearing before the court, and had another counsel, Atty. Buen Zamar, make a special
appearance on the former’s behalf as a counsel for the accused.
- The accused was eventually arrested, and she was held for trial.
Issue/s:
- Whether the petitioner was denied her day in court (due process of law)
Ruling/Held:
- YES. The SC rules that the petitioner was deprived of due process of law on account of the
negligence of her counsel. The appearance of Atty. Buen Zamar is of no comment as there was no
client-attorney relationship between him and petitioner. As a consequence, to the petitioner being
deprived of due process of law, the SC decides that the decisions of the Court of Appeals, and of the
trial courts to be SET ASIDE. The trial court is hereby DIRECTED to reopen Criminal Cases No.
7284-7296, 7302-7303, and 7650
Doctrine/Basis:
- Canon 17 and 22

You might also like