This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| A similar conclusion was reached in Sofio v. Valenzuela,[55] thus: [T]he petitioners were able to participate in the proceedings before the [Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator] and the [Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board], and, in fact, obtained a favorable judgment from the DARAB. They also had a similar opportunity to ventilate their cause in the CA. That they had not been able to avail themselves of all the remedies open to them did not give them the justification to complain of a denial of due process. They could not complain because they were given the opportunity to defend their interest in due course x x x.[56] | |||||
|
2012-11-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The present case does not fall under the said exceptions. In Amil v. Court of Appeals,[15] the Court held that "to fall within the exceptional circumstance relied upon x x x, it must be shown that the negligence of counsel must be so gross that the client is deprived of his day in court. Thus, []where a party was given the opportunity to defend [its] interests in due course, [it] cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process." To properly claim gross negligence on the part of the counsel, the petitioner must show that the counsel was guilty of nothing short of a clear abandonment of the client's cause.[16] | |||||