Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GEORGE F. SALONGA v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 203302 2013-03-12	MAYOR EMMANUEL L. MALIKSI v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
There is no denial of due process where there is opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings.[29] It is settled that "opportunity to be heard" does not only mean oral arguments in court but also written arguments through pleadings.[30] Thus, the fact that a party was heard on his motion for reconsideration negates any violation of the right to due process.[31] The Court has ruled that denial of due process cannot be invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.[32]
	GR No. 180819 2010-07-05	AMIHAN BUS LINES v. ROMARS INTERNATIONAL GASES CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
In the instant case, none of the foregoing instances exists to justify the annulment of the decision of the RTC. Petitioner's contention that the failure to present its side on account of its former counsel's gross negligence constitutes extrinsic fraud isuntenable.The nature of extrinsic fraud necessarily requires that its cause be traceable to some fraudulent act of the prevailing party committed outside the trial of the case.[14]There is extrinsic fraud when a party was prevented from having presented all of his case to the court as when the lawyer connives at his defeat or corruptly sells out his client's interest.[15]
	GR No. 182267 2009-08-28	PAGAYANAN R. HADJI-SIRAD v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[24] "To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.[25]
	GR No. 180817 2009-06-23	MULTI-TRANS AGENCY PHILS. INC. v. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORP.
One of the grounds for the granting of a new trial under Section 1 of Rule 37 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is excusable negligence.[45] 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.[46] Consequently, the mistake or negligence of counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against the client.[47] We have, however, carved out exceptions to this rule; as where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; or where the application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or where the interests of justice so requires and relief ought to be accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[48] In order to apply the exceptions rather than the rule, the circumstances obtaining in each case must be looked into. In cases where one of the exceptions is present, the courts must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby.[49]
	GR NO. 151854 2008-09-03	PHILUX v. NLRC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Salonga v. Court of Appeals[23] cited by petitioners, we found therein petitioner's former counsel only guilty of simple negligence and not gross negligence as would amount to a deprivation of petitioner's right to due process, although said counsel's failure to file a timely answer has led to a judgment by default against his client.
	GR Nos. 139594-95 2008-02-26	BORROMEO BROS. ESTATE v. EDGAR JOHN A. GARCIA PUNO, CJ.
Indeed, deprivation of the right to due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his Motion for Reconsideration[20] as what happened in the instant case.
	GR NO. 160445 2006-02-16	JOSE TEOFILO T. MERCADO v. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ, J.
The Resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated September 15, 2004 denying Mercado's motion for reconsideration is well explained. A principle almost repeated to satiety is that "an action for annulment of judgment cannot and is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal." A party must have first availed of appeal, a motion for new trial or a petition for relief before an action for annulment can prosper. Its obvious rationale is to prevent the party from benefiting from his inaction or negligence. Also, the action for annulment of judgment must be based either on (a) extrinsic fraud or (b) lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process.[18] Having failed to avail of the remedies and there being a clear showing that neither of the grounds was present, the petition must be dismissed. Only a disgruntled litigant would find such legal disposition unacceptable.