Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28700:g-r-no-l-24957-august-3,-1988-paulino-v-nera-v-auditor-general&catid=1240&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:15:57+00:00

Document:
PAULINO V. NERA, **, Petitioner, v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL, Respondent.
2.	CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; NOT ESSENTIAL IN NON-CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. — The right to the assistance of counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required by the Constitution or a law. Exception is made in the charter only during the custodial investigation of a person suspected of a crime, who may not waive his right to counsel except in writing and in the presence of counsel, and during the trial of the accused, who has the right "to be heard by himself and counsel," either retained by him or provided for him by the government at its expense. In other proceedings, however, the need for the assistance of counsel is not as urgent nor is it deemed essential to their validity. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a party in a non-criminal proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that without such representation he will not be bound by such proceedings. The assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable.
3.	REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL FROM THE RULING OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL; MUST BE MADE TO THE SUPREME COURT IF APPELLANT IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN OR ENTITY. — The Court notes that prior to the filing of this petition for review, and possibly even before making his request for reconsideration dated July 15, 1965, Nera appealed the ruling of the Deputy Auditor General to the Office of the President. The record does not show what happened to the appeal after the Office of the President, upon its inquiry, was informed by the General Auditing Office that its decision had already become final and was no longer appealable. At any rate, such appeal was the wrong remedy as at the time it was made, the petitioner had already retired and had become a private citizen. So we held in Espino v. Gimenez, where the appellant had retired from the National Power Corporation, and affirmed in Rosario v. Chairman of the Commission on Audit where the claimant was a former employee of the National Library, in keeping with a long line of earlier decisions on that same question.
4.	ID.; ID.; CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IF NOT FILED ON TIME. — Whatever the merits of the petitioner’s stance, we cannot consider them now because he has not appealed to this Court on time. Vigilantibus sed non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
Nera filed this petition for review with this Court on September 8, 1965, insisting that he was entitled to the disputed longevity pay and that his appeal was not filed out of time.
This is a strange and novel argument, indeed. Under the petitioner’s theory, even the rulings he sought to have reconsidered would have to be disregarded because they were rendered when he was acting on his own and therefore, as he contends, acting invalidly. In effect, following this logic, all proceedings where a person is not represented by counsel are null and void ab initio for violation of due process because he could not legally act by himself alone. Yet, magically, they become valid and may be reconsidered the moment and provided such person retains the services of a lawyer and starts acting through such counsel.
In other proceedings, however, the need for the assistance of counsel is not as urgent nor is it deemed essential to their validity. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a party in a non-criminal proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that without such representation he will not be bound by such proceedings. The assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable. The legal profession was not engrafted in the due process clause such that without the participation of its members the safeguard is deemed ignored or violated. The ordinary citizen is not that helpless that he cannot validly act at all except only with a lawyer at his side.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.
Narvasa, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
**	Deceased, substituted by his daughter, Teresita B. Nera.
1.	Auditor Sostenes M. Babasa.
2.	Deputy Auditor General Jesus Iriarte.
3.	Annex "C," Rollo, pp. 14-24.
4.	Annex "1," Rollo, p. 46.
5.	Annex "E," Rollo, p. 26.
6.	Annex "F," Rollo. p. 35.
8.	Annex "C," Rollo, p. 14.
9.	Annex "D," Rollo, p. 25.
10.	Lacson v. Auditor General, 107 Phil. 921.
11.	Mañgonon v. Republic, 114 Phil. 604.
12.	Casibang v. Philippine Tobacco Administration, 128 SCRA 87.
13.	Brief for the Petitioner, p. 18; Rollo, p. 53.
14.	1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 12(1).
16.	Annex "C," Rollo, pp. 14-24.
17.	Annex "E," Rollo, pp. 26-34.
20.	Dimaano v. Auditor General, 3 SCRA 811; Madrid v. Auditor General, 108 Phil. 578; Lacson v. Auditor General, 107 Phil. 945; Valencia v. Auditor General, 107 Phil. 128; Recio v. Auditor General, 105 Phil. 508; Bautista v. Auditor General, 104 Phil. 428; Peralta v. Auditor General, 100 Phil. 1051; Espejo v. Auditor General, 97 Phil. 216.
21.	The laws aid the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights."

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.