This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2009-06-23 |
|||||
| 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] | |||||
|
2008-07-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioners themselves cannot deny that due process was afforded them after the inspection. For one thing, their motion for reconsideration of the Order dated November 7, 1997 was granted, which resulted in the re-opening of the proceedings and the holding of subsequent hearings. In these hearings, petitioners were given the chance to air their side. Petitioners also submitted their position paper, in which they summarized all their arguments and presented their documentary evidence, such as a contract of lease, payroll sheets and quitclaims, to refute the respondents' claims, as well as the inspector's findings. In the petition now before us, petitioners themselves claim that they seasonably contested the findings of the labor inspector.[35] Taking all these into consideration, the ineluctable conclusion is that the demands of due process were satisfied, as petitioners had been given all the opportunity to be heard. It has been held that where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process.[36] | |||||
|
2007-06-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Extrinsic fraud is that perpetrated by the prevailing party, not by the unsuccessful party's own counsel.[31] As a general rule, counsel's ineptitude is not a ground to annul judgment, for the latter's management of the case binds his client.[32] The rationale behind this rule is that, once retained, counsel holds the implied authority to do all acts which are necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, and any act performed by said counsel within the scope of such authority is, in the eyes of the law, regarded as the act of the client himself.[33] | |||||
|
2007-03-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We agree with Lubigan's submission. The essence of due process is to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence in support of his defense.[12] Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process.[13] What is offensive to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard.[14] | |||||
|
2005-11-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The unfortunate predicament of the Republic was caused by the Solicitor General, its own counsel. We have consistently ruled that, to render a judgment void, the fraud must be committed by the adverse party and not by one's own counsel.[24] | |||||
|
2005-09-26 |
|||||
| The Court does not agree with respondent bank that its former counsel's mishandling of the case amounts to extrinsic fraud. After all, a client is bound by the negligence or mistake of his counsel.[25] While indeed there are cases when the Court declared that gross or reckless negligence of counsel amounts to extrinsic fraud, but this is the exception rather than the general rule. Not all negligence of counsel qualifies as extrinsic fraud, and each case must be considered under its own set of particular circumstances in ascertaining whether a counsel's negligence may provide sufficient basis to annul an otherwise final and executory judgment. Thus, in Elcee Farms, Inc. vs. Semillano,[26] the Court stated:As a general rule, the negligence or mistake of counsel binds the client, for otherwise there would never be an end to a suit so long as a new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that the former counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned. | |||||
|
2004-07-21 |
DAVIDE JR., J. |
||||
| Neither does the alleged gross negligence of petitioners' former counsel resulting in the late and improper payment of docket fees constitute a ground to relax the Court's procedural rules. The doctrinal rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client. Otherwise, there would never be an end to a suit so long as a new counsel could be employed who would allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned.[25] | |||||
|
2002-01-31 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| As a general rule, the negligence or mistake of counsel binds the client,[31] for otherwise there would never be an end to a suit so long as a new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that the former counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned.[32] But if under the circumstances of the case, the rule deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes a great hindrance and chief enemy, its rigors must be relaxed to admit exceptions thereto and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In other words, the court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice require it. What should guide judicial action is that a party is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor or property on mere technicalities.[33] | |||||