Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FIVE STAR BUS CO. v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 154040 2005-08-28	ADVANCE TEXTILE MILLS v. WILLY C. TAN QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner contends that respondent, in filing the Ex-parte Motion to Cancel Hearing, impliedly acknowledged the sufficiency of the first notice served solely upon his counsel. Petitioner maintains that respondent may not now insist and claim that the subsequent notice of pre-trial sent to his counsel was defective and inadequate. Petitioner cites Five Star Bus Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[11] where this Court held that service of such notice on a party-litigant shall preferably be made through his counsel who has the duty to see to it that the former received such notice and attends the reset pre-trial.
	GR No. 154040 2005-07-28	ADVANCE TEXTILE MILLS v. WILLY C. TAN QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner contends that respondent, in filing the Ex-parte Motion to Cancel Hearing, impliedly acknowledged the sufficiency of the first notice served solely upon his counsel. Petitioner maintains that respondent may not now insist and claim that the subsequent notice of pre-trial sent to his counsel was defective and inadequate. Petitioner cites Five Star Bus Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[11] where this Court held that service of such notice on a party-litigant shall preferably be made through his counsel who has the duty to see to it that the former received such notice and attends the reset pre-trial.
	GR Nos. 143200-01 2002-08-01	PEOPLE v. RICHARD R. DEAUNA PANGANIBAN, J.
A: Yes, sir.'"[8] Version of the Defense
	GR No. 144813 2001-08-15	GOLD LINE TRANSIT v. LUISA RAMOS BELLOSILLO, J.
To cater to petitioner's arguments and reinstate its petition for relief from judgment would put a premium on the negligence of its former counsel and encourage the non-termination of this case by reason thereof. This is one case where petitioner has to bear the adverse consequences of its counsel's act, for a client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and he cannot thereafter be heard to complain that the result might have been different had his counsel proceeded differently.[11] The rationale for the rule is easily discernible. If the negligence of counsel be admitted as a reason for opening cases, there would never be an end to a suit so long as a new counsel could be hired every time it is shown that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced or learned.[12]