This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-01-24 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The Baloloys[,] apparently in an attempt to cure the lapse of the aforesaid reglementary period to file a petition for relief from judgment[,] included in its petition the two Orders dated May 6, 1994 and June 29, 1994. The first Order denied Baloloys' motion to fix the period within which plaintiffs-appellants pay the balance of the purchase price. The second Order refers to the grant of partial execution, i.e. on the aspect of damages. These Orders are only consequences of the partial decision subject of the petition for relief, and thus, cannot be considered in the determination of the reglementary period within which to file the said petition for relief. Furthermore, no fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence exists in order that the petition for relief may be granted.[14] There is no proof of extrinsic fraud that "prevents a party from having a trial x x x or from presenting all of his case to the court"[15] or an "accident x x x which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, and by reason of which the party applying has probably been impaired in his rights."[16] There is also no proof of either a "mistake x x x of law"[17] or an excusable negligence "caused by failure to receive notice of x x x the trial x x x that it would not be necessary for him to take an active part in the case x x x by relying on another person to attend to the case for him, when such other person x x x was chargeable with that duty x x x, or by other circumstances not involving fault of the moving party."[18] | |||||
|
2000-12-15 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the doctrinal rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client because otherwise, "there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, or experienced, or learned."[15] We have, however, carved out exceptions to this rule as where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or where the application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property or where the interests of justice so require and relief ought to be accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[16] What must be determined therefore is whether the instant case falls under the above exceptions. | |||||