Lawyerly

GR No. 194962

2016-01-27

CAGAYAN ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. MERIDIEN VISTA GAMING CORPORATION

MENDOZA, J.

The notices sent to the counsel of record is binding upon the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment that is valid and regular on its face.[31] 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 the client.[32]

GR No. 173559

2013-01-07

LETICIA DIONA v. SONNY A. BALANGUE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In fine, respondents did not lose the remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief and other remedies through their own fault. It can only be attributed to the gross negligence of their erstwhile counsel which prevented them from pursuing such remedies. We cannot also blame respondents for relying too much on their former counsel. Clients have reasonable expectations that their lawyer would amply protect their interest during the trial of the case.[52] Here, "[r]espondents are plain and ordinary people x x x who are totally ignorant of the intricacies and technicalities of law and legal procedures. Being so, they completely relied upon and trusted their former counsel to appropriately act as their interest may lawfully warrant and require."[53]

GR No. 156296

2012-11-12

DENNIS Q. MORTEL v. SALVADOR E. KERR

BERSAMIN, J.

We held in Apex Mining, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[34] that when the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great and the result is so serious that the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in court, the client deserves another chance to present his case; hence, the litigation may be reopened for that purpose. Also, when an unsuccessful party has been prevented from fully and fairly presenting his case because of his attorney's professional delinquency or infidelity the litigation may be reopened to allow the party to present his side. Lastly, where counsel is guilty of gross ignorance, negligence and dereliction of duty, which resulted in the client's being held liable for damages in a damage suit, the client is deprived of his day in court and the judgment may be set aside on such ground.[35]

GR No. 166859

2011-04-12

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

BERSAMIN, J.

3.01. All other allegations in the complaint are disputed.[115]

GR No. 166859

2011-04-12

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

BERSAMIN, J.

The thrust of the Republic that the funds were borrowed or lent might even preclude any consequent trust implication. In a contract of loan, one of the parties (creditor) delivers money or other consumable thing to another (debtor) on the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid.[129] Owing to the consumable nature of the thing loaned, the resulting duty of the borrower in a contract of loan is to pay, not to return, to the creditor or lender the very thing loaned. This explains why the ownership of the thing loaned is transferred to the debtor upon perfection of the contract.[130] Ownership of the thing loaned having transferred, the debtor enjoys all the rights conferred to an owner of property, including the right to use and enjoy (jus utendi), to consume the thing by its use (jus abutendi), and to dispose (jus disponendi), subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.[131] Evidently, the resulting relationship between a creditor and debtor in a contract of loan cannot be characterized as fiduciary.[132]

GR No. 179620

2008-08-26

MANUEL G. ALMELOR v. RTC OF LAS PIÑAS CITY

REYES, R.T., J.

In Apex Mining, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[48] this Court explained thus: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. However, where counsel is guilty of gross ignorance, negligence and dereliction of duty, which resulted in the client's being held liable for damages in a damage suit, the client is deprived of his day in court and the judgment may be set aside on such ground. In the instant case, higher interests of justice and equity demand that petitioners be allowed to present evidence on their defense. Petitioners may not be made to suffer for the lawyer's mistakes. This Court will always be disposed to grant relief to parties aggrieved by perfidy, fraud, reckless inattention and downright incompetence of lawyers, which has the consequence of depriving their clients, of their day in court.[49] (Emphasis supplied) Clearly, this Court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the demands of justice require it. With more conviction should it wield such power in a case involving the sacrosanct institution of marriage. This Court is guided with the thrust of giving a party the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of one's action.[50]

GR NO. 159222

2007-06-26

PEOPLE v. RAFAEL BITANGA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

There is an exception to the foregoing rule, and that is when the negligence of counsel had been so egregious that it prejudiced his client's interest and denied him his day in court.[34] For this exception to apply, however, the gross negligence of counsel should not be accompanied by his client's own negligence or malice.[35] Clients have the duty to be vigilant of their interests by keeping themselves up to date on the status of their case.[36] Failing in this duty, they suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against them. As we held in Tan v. Court of Appeals:[37]

GR No. 165767

2005-11-29

SPS. WILLIAM G. FRIEND AND MARIA RENEE FRIEND AND JOHN DOE v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

However, this rule admits certain exceptions, such as: (1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require.[10] Indeed, there have been instances when this court had accorded relief to the client who suffered by reason of their lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[11] The instant case does not fall under any of the exceptions.

GR No. 151963

2004-09-09

AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS.

PANGANIBAN, J.

Axiomatic is the rule that "negligence of counsel binds the client."[8] The basis is the tenet that an act performed by counsel within the scope of a "general or implied authority"[9] is regarded as an act of the client.[10] "Consequently, the mistake or negligence of counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against the client."[11]

GR No. 145915

2003-04-24

PEOPLE v. VILMA ALMENDRAS Y ZAPATA

QUISUMBING, J.

In Apex Mining, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[76] we held that in cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property or where the interests of justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[77] This ruling found positive resonance in Doroteo Salazar and Dozen Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals.[78] Both are civil cases, where we granted new trial on motion of petitioners who stood to lose property due to the negligence of their respective counsels. In the present case, involving the death sentence, with more reason do appellants deserve to be heard, because their lives are about to be forfeit. Not that we are rewarding defense counsel's apparent antics, nor do we denigrate an appellant's stubborn refusal to be represented by a counsel de oficio. Having engaged the services of counsel, however, a party has justifiable reason to expect that only his chosen counsel could amply protect his interests in the case.

GR No. 138518

2000-12-15

MARCELINA GACUTANA-FRAILE v. ANGEL T. DOMINGO

PUNO, J.

On the other hand, the doctrinal rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client because otherwise, "there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, or experienced, or learned."[15] 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 require and relief ought to be accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[16] What must be determined therefore is whether the instant case falls under the above exceptions.

	GR No. 194962 2016-01-27	CAGAYAN ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. MERIDIEN VISTA GAMING CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
The notices sent to the counsel of record is binding upon the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment that is valid and regular on its face.[31] 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 the client.[32]
	GR No. 173559 2013-01-07	LETICIA DIONA v. SONNY A. BALANGUE DEL CASTILLO, J.
In fine, respondents did not lose the remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief and other remedies through their own fault. It can only be attributed to the gross negligence of their erstwhile counsel which prevented them from pursuing such remedies. We cannot also blame respondents for relying too much on their former counsel. Clients have reasonable expectations that their lawyer would amply protect their interest during the trial of the case.[52] Here, "[r]espondents are plain and ordinary people x x x who are totally ignorant of the intricacies and technicalities of law and legal procedures. Being so, they completely relied upon and trusted their former counsel to appropriately act as their interest may lawfully warrant and require."[53]
	GR No. 156296 2012-11-12	DENNIS Q. MORTEL v. SALVADOR E. KERR BERSAMIN, J.
We held in Apex Mining, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[34] that when the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great and the result is so serious that the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in court, the client deserves another chance to present his case; hence, the litigation may be reopened for that purpose. Also, when an unsuccessful party has been prevented from fully and fairly presenting his case because of his attorney's professional delinquency or infidelity the litigation may be reopened to allow the party to present his side. Lastly, where counsel is guilty of gross ignorance, negligence and dereliction of duty, which resulted in the client's being held liable for damages in a damage suit, the client is deprived of his day in court and the judgment may be set aside on such ground.[35]
	GR No. 166859 2011-04-12	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
3.01. All other allegations in the complaint are disputed.[115]
	GR No. 166859 2011-04-12	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN BERSAMIN, J.
The thrust of the Republic that the funds were borrowed or lent might even preclude any consequent trust implication. In a contract of loan, one of the parties (creditor) delivers money or other consumable thing to another (debtor) on the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid.[129] Owing to the consumable nature of the thing loaned, the resulting duty of the borrower in a contract of loan is to pay, not to return, to the creditor or lender the very thing loaned. This explains why the ownership of the thing loaned is transferred to the debtor upon perfection of the contract.[130] Ownership of the thing loaned having transferred, the debtor enjoys all the rights conferred to an owner of property, including the right to use and enjoy (jus utendi), to consume the thing by its use (jus abutendi), and to dispose (jus disponendi), subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.[131] Evidently, the resulting relationship between a creditor and debtor in a contract of loan cannot be characterized as fiduciary.[132]
	GR No. 179620 2008-08-26	MANUEL G. ALMELOR v. RTC OF LAS PIÑAS CITY REYES, R.T., J.
In Apex Mining, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[48] this Court explained thus: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. However, where counsel is guilty of gross ignorance, negligence and dereliction of duty, which resulted in the client's being held liable for damages in a damage suit, the client is deprived of his day in court and the judgment may be set aside on such ground. In the instant case, higher interests of justice and equity demand that petitioners be allowed to present evidence on their defense. Petitioners may not be made to suffer for the lawyer's mistakes. This Court will always be disposed to grant relief to parties aggrieved by perfidy, fraud, reckless inattention and downright incompetence of lawyers, which has the consequence of depriving their clients, of their day in court.[49] (Emphasis supplied) Clearly, this Court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the demands of justice require it. With more conviction should it wield such power in a case involving the sacrosanct institution of marriage. This Court is guided with the thrust of giving a party the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of one's action.[50]
	GR NO. 159222 2007-06-26	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL BITANGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is an exception to the foregoing rule, and that is when the negligence of counsel had been so egregious that it prejudiced his client's interest and denied him his day in court.[34] For this exception to apply, however, the gross negligence of counsel should not be accompanied by his client's own negligence or malice.[35] Clients have the duty to be vigilant of their interests by keeping themselves up to date on the status of their case.[36] Failing in this duty, they suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against them. As we held in Tan v. Court of Appeals:[37]
	GR No. 165767 2005-11-29	SPS. WILLIAM G. FRIEND AND MARIA RENEE FRIEND AND JOHN DOE v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, this rule admits certain exceptions, such as: (1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require.[10] Indeed, there have been instances when this court had accorded relief to the client who suffered by reason of their lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[11] The instant case does not fall under any of the exceptions.
	GR No. 151963 2004-09-09	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS. PANGANIBAN, J.
Axiomatic is the rule that "negligence of counsel binds the client."[8] The basis is the tenet that an act performed by counsel within the scope of a "general or implied authority"[9] is regarded as an act of the client.[10] "Consequently, the mistake or negligence of counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against the client."[11]
	GR No. 145915 2003-04-24	PEOPLE v. VILMA ALMENDRAS Y ZAPATA QUISUMBING, J.
In Apex Mining, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[76] we held that in cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property or where the interests of justice so require, relief is accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[77] This ruling found positive resonance in Doroteo Salazar and Dozen Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals.[78] Both are civil cases, where we granted new trial on motion of petitioners who stood to lose property due to the negligence of their respective counsels. In the present case, involving the death sentence, with more reason do appellants deserve to be heard, because their lives are about to be forfeit. Not that we are rewarding defense counsel's apparent antics, nor do we denigrate an appellant's stubborn refusal to be represented by a counsel de oficio. Having engaged the services of counsel, however, a party has justifiable reason to expect that only his chosen counsel could amply protect his interests in the case.
	GR No. 138518 2000-12-15	MARCELINA GACUTANA-FRAILE v. ANGEL T. DOMINGO PUNO, J.
On the other hand, the doctrinal rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client because otherwise, "there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, or experienced, or learned."[15] 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 require and relief ought to be accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[16] What must be determined therefore is whether the instant case falls under the above exceptions.

APEX MINING v. CA