This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-10-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A client is generally bound by the mistakes of his lawyer, otherwise, there would never be an end to a suit as long as a new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned.[38] While it is true that excusable negligence is one of the recognized grounds for a motion for new trial or reconsideration,[39] there can be no excusable negligence when ordinary prudence could have guarded against it.[40] | |||||
|
2006-06-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The petitioner manifestly failed to display in the proceedings below the expected degree of concern or attention to his case. In Leonardo v. S.T. Best, Inc.,[18] we reiterated that: As clients, petitioners should have maintained contact with their counsel from time to time, and informed themselves of the progress of their case, thereby exercising that standard of care "which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon his business." Even in the absence of the petitioner's negligence, the rule in this jurisdiction is that a party is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. In the earlier case of Tesoro v. Court of Appeals,[19] we emphasized - It has been repeatedly enunciated that "a client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had he proceeded differently. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. If such grounds were to be admitted as reasons for reopening cases, 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." Thus, with the ordinary remedy of appeal lost through the petitioner's own fault, we affirm that no reversible error was committed in the dismissal of the petition by the appellate court. | |||||
|
2005-03-04 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The long-standing rule in this jurisdiction is that a client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. Mistakes of attorneys as to the competency of a witness, the sufficiency, relevancy or irrelevancy of certain evidence, the proper defense or the burden of proof, failure to introduce evidence, to summon witnesses, and to argue the case, unless they prejudice the client and prevent him from properly presenting his case, do not constitute gross incompetence or negligence.[13] | |||||