This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In highly meritorious cases, however, the Court may depart from the application of this rule such as when the negligence of the counsel is so gross, reckless, and inexcusable that the client is deprived of due process of law;[33] when adherence to the general rule would result in the outright deprivation of the clients' property;[34] or when the interests of justice so require.[35] In the case of People's Homesite and Housing Corporation v. Tiongco,[36] the Court stated the reason therefor. Thus: There should be no dispute regarding the doctrine that normally notice to counsel is notice to parties, and that such doctrine has beneficient effects upon the prompt dispensation of justice. Its application to a given case, however, should be looked into and adopted, according to the surrounding circumstances; otherwise, in the court's desire to make a short cut of the proceedings, it might foster, wittingly or unwittingly, dangerous collusions to the detriment of justice. It would then be easy for one lawyer to sell one's right down the river, by just alleging that he just forgot every process of the court affecting his clients, because he was so busy. Under this circumstance, one should not insist that a notice to such irresponsible lawyer is also a notice to his clients.[37] | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing at this point then that the rule, which states that the mistakes of counsel binds the client, may not be strictly followed where observance of it would result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property, or where the interest of justice so requires. In rendering justice, procedural infirmities take a backseat against substantive rights of litigants. Corollarily, if the strict application of the rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, this Court is not without power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the rules of procedure.[16] | |||||