Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ACEYORK AGUILAR v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
On October 30, 1995, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 282, directing the PEZA to assume and exercise all of the EPZA's powers, functions, and responsibilities "as provided in Presidential Decree No. 66, as amended, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the powers, functions, and responsibilities of the PEZA, as mandated under [the Special Economic Zone Act of 1995]."[19] All of EPZA's properties, equipment, and assets, among others, were ordered transferred to the PEZA.[20]
	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
On October 30, 1995, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 282, directing the PEZA to assume and exercise all of the EPZA's powers, functions, and responsibilities "as provided in Presidential Decree No. 66, as amended, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the powers, functions, and responsibilities of the PEZA, as mandated under [the Special Economic Zone Act of 1995]."[19] All of EPZA's properties, equipment, and assets, among others, were ordered transferred to the PEZA.[20]
	GR No. 188630 2011-02-23	FILOMENA L. VILLANUEVA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
The court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice require it.[26]
	GR No. 179620 2008-08-26	MANUEL G. ALMELOR v. RTC OF LAS PIÑAS CITY REYES, R.T., J.
It is settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. This is based on the rule that any act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client. However, where counsel is guilty of gross ignorance, negligence and dereliction of duty, which resulted in the client's being held liable for damages in a damage suit, the client is deprived of his day in court and the judgment may be set aside on such ground. In the instant case, higher interests of justice and equity demand that petitioners be allowed to present evidence on their defense. Petitioners may not be made to suffer for the lawyer's mistakes. This Court will always be disposed to grant relief to parties aggrieved by perfidy, fraud, reckless inattention and downright incompetence of lawyers, which has the consequence of depriving their clients, of their day in court.[49] (Emphasis supplied) Clearly, this Court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the demands of justice require it. With more conviction should it wield such power in a case involving the sacrosanct institution of marriage. This Court is guided with the thrust of giving a party the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of one's action.[50]
	GR No. 134888 2000-12-01	RAM'S STUDIO v. CA AND SPS. CASTRO JOSE RIVERA AND GINA CYNTHIA HERNAL RIVERA BELLOSILLO, J.
In short, petitioner wants to impress upon us that the starting point of reckoning for the filing of the motion for new trial should be 11 April 1996, and not 10 April 1996 as held by the Court of Appeals.[6] Petitioner through counsel attributes its present woes to Atty. Alcaraz, its former counsel, who did not even have the courtesy of filing any formal withdrawal of appearance. Petitioner now begs that it be given the chance to present its case and enable this Court to fully determine the issues raised and thus abide by the principle laid down in Aguilar v. Court of Appeals that "losing liberty by default of an insensitive lawyer should be frowned upon despite the fiction that a client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer.[7]