This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-11-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is incumbent upon the client to exert all efforts to retain the services of new counsel.[66] VCP knew since August 29, 2006, seven months before the CA rendered its Decision, that it had no counsel. Despite its knowledge, it did not immediately hire a lawyer to attend to its affairs. Instead, it waited until the last minute, when it had already received the adverse CA Decision on April 10, 2007, to search for a counsel; and even then, VCP did not rush to meet the deadline. It asked for an extension of 30 days to file a Motion for Reconsideration.[67] It finally retained the services of a new counsel on May 24, 2007,[68] nine months from the time that its former counsel withdrew her appearance. VCP did not even attempt to explain its inaction. The Court cannot grant equity where it is clearly undeserved by a grossly negligent party.[69] As the Court pronounced in another case: x x x Both parties have a right to a speedy resolution of their case. Not only petitioners, but also the respondents, have a right to have the case finally settled without delay. | |||||
|
2011-03-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| On 11 February 2003, LBP filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals,[16] docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 75473, questioning the dismissal of its petition before the SAC. This case was consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 01008 involving a petition filed by DFC to cite LBP and its counsel in contempt for LBP's alleged violation of the rule against forum-shopping. | |||||