Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BARANGAY 24 OF LEGAZPI CITY v. ELIAS IMPERIAL

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 162286 2009-06-05	GLEN PASCUAL Y MALUMAY v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in its Comment[18] dated January 28, 2004, argued that the claim of the petitioners that they were not informed by their counsel of the filing of the motion for extension of the period for the filing of their brief and the dismissal of the appeal on account of the non-filing of the said required pleading, was devoid of any merit. The OSG pointed out that the petitioners were aware of the notice to file brief, since what they disclaimed knowledge of were merely the motion for extension filed by their counsel and the resolution dismissing the appeal. It was also observed by the OSG that the lack of coordination by the petitioners with their counsel respecting the appeal may be attributed to the possibility that petitioners were confused as to who their counsel was, as shown in their Omnibus Motion, wherein they referred to their counsel as Atty. Humberto Basco on page 1 and as Atty. Edilberto R. Balce on page 3, which indicate that the petitioners did not even bother to know who their counsel was. It was also claimed by the OSG that petitioners omitted to state in their Motion the date when they discovered the dismissal of their appeal and, thereby, hiding the unreasonable delay or laches on their part with regard to their Urgent Motion, which was filed more than 11 months since the Resolution dismissing the appeal was promulgated. In sum, the OSG, citing jurisprudence,[19] contended that a client is bound by the actions of his counsel, as well as by his mistake or negligence, and that a party cannot blame his counsel for negligence when he himself is guilty of neglect.
	GR NO. 148482 2005-08-12	JOSEPH DORMAN D. TAMAYO v. JOSE D. TAMAYO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It is a doctrinal rule that the perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional. Thus, the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period for taking an appeal is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.[5] Anyone seeking exemption from the application of this Rule has the burden of proving that exceptionally meritorious instances exist which warrant such departure.[6] However, the Court of Appeals did not find any compelling reason to relax the rules. Neither we.
	GR NO. 163022 2005-02-28	MEATMASTERS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. LELIS INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is well-established that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. This is so because a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action only upon the payment of the correct amount of docket fees regardless of the actual date of filing of the case in court.[8] The payment of the full amount of the docket fee is a sine qua non requirement for the perfection of an appeal. The court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees.
	GR No. 144118 2004-07-21	SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY v. WINSTON JOSEPH Z. CORDERO AND SPS. LUCIO CORDERO DAVIDE JR., J.
Their first argument premised on denial of due process on account of their inability to appeal is bereft of merit. An appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. It is purely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.[24]
	GR No. 137448 2002-01-31	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. BENGSON COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 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]