This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-11-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| But the rule admits of exceptions. In several rulings, the Court held the client not concluded by the negligence, incompetence or mistake of the counsel. For instance, in Suarez v. Court of Appeals,[28] the Court set aside the judgment and mandated the trial court to reopen the case for the reception of the evidence for the defense after finding that the negligence of the therein petitioner's counsel had deprived her of the right to present and prove her defense. Also, in Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[29] the Court ordered restored to the petitioner her property that had been sold at public auction in satisfaction of a default judgment resulting from the failure of her counsel to file an answer and from counsel's lack of vigilance in protecting her interests in subsequent proceedings before the trial court and the CA. Lastly, in Amil v. Court of Appeals,[30] the Court declared that an exception to the rule that a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel is when the negligence of the counsel is so gross that the client was deprived of his day in court, thereby also depriving the client of his property without due process of law. | |||||