This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-12-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Anent the second issue, we have consistently held that a motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15[14] of the Rules of Court is considered a worthless piece of paper, which the Clerk of Court has no right to receive and the trial court has no authority to act upon. [15] Service of a copy of a motion containing a notice of the time and the place of hearing of that motion is a mandatory requirement, and the failure of movants to comply with these requirements renders their motions fatally defective. However, there are exceptions to the strict application of this rule. These exceptions are: (1) where a rigid application will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice especially if a party successfully shows that the alleged defect in the questioned final and executory judgment is not apparent on its face or from the recitals contained therein; (2) where the interest of substantial justice will be served; (3) where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion of the court; and (4) where the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.[16] | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| As earlier mentioned, petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision was denied for having been filed beyond the 15 day reglementary period. For her predicament, she blamed her former lawyer, Atty. Eutiquio A. Cajes. Petitioner should have known that "the client is bound by the acts of his counsel, even his mistakes and negligence."[6] We observe though that she is not entirely blameless for the denial of her motion for reconsideration. In Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,[7] we held that "litigants, represented by counsel, should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case." Indeed, it is their duty as litigants to keep in constant touch with their counsel so as to be posted on the status of their case.[8] | |||||