Lawyerly

GR No. 194962

2016-01-27

CAGAYAN ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. MERIDIEN VISTA GAMING CORPORATION

MENDOZA, J.

Time and again, this Court has stressed that rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very strict and technical sense.[50] The rules are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.[51] As pronounced in the case of Legarda vs. Court of Appeals:[52]

GR No. 192866

2014-07-09

PEDRO G. RESURRECCION v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

Nothing is more settled than the rule that the negligence and mistakes of the counsel are binding on the client.[18] The rationale behind this rule is that a counsel, once retained, is said to have the authority, albeit impliedly, to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution of the case in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of his authority is treated by law as the act or omission of the client himself.[19] It is only in cases involving gross or palpable negligence of the counsel, or when the application of the general rule amounts to an outright deprivation of one's property or liberty through technicality, or where the interests of justice so require, when relief is accorded to a client who has suffered thereby.[20]

AC. No. 9310

2013-02-27

VERLEEN TRINIDAD v. ATTY. ANGELITO VILLARIN

SERENO, C.J.

As the lawyer of Purence Realty, respondent is expected to champion the cause of his client with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.[19] This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense[20] including the institution of an ejectment case that is recognized by our property laws. In Legarda v. Court of Appeals, we held that in the full discharge of their duties to the client, lawyers shall not be afraid of the possibility that they may displease the general public.[21]

GR No. 173559

2013-01-07

LETICIA DIONA v. SONNY A. BALANGUE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Respondents maintain that it was through no fault of their own, but through the gross negligence of their former counsel, Atty. Coroza, that the remedies of new trial, appeal or petition for relief from judgment were lost. They allege that after filing a Motion to Extend Period to Answer, Atty. Coroza did not file any pleading resulting to their being declared in default. While the said lawyer filed on their behalf a Motion to Set Aside Judgment dated January 26, 2001, he however took no steps to appeal from the Decision of the RTC, thereby allowing said judgment to lapse into finality. Citing Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[31] respondents aver that clients are not always bound by the actions of their counsel, as in the present case where the clients are to lose their property due to the gross negligence of their counsel.

GR No. 156296

2012-11-12

DENNIS Q. MORTEL v. SALVADOR E. KERR

BERSAMIN, J.

But the rule admits of exceptions. In several rulings, the Court held the client not concluded by the negligence, incompetence or mistake of the counsel. For instance, in Suarez v. Court of Appeals,[28] the Court set aside the judgment and mandated the trial court to reopen the case for the reception of the evidence for the defense after finding that the negligence of the therein petitioner's counsel had deprived her of the right to present and prove her defense. Also, in Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[29] the Court ordered restored to the petitioner her property that had been sold at public auction in satisfaction of a default judgment resulting from the failure of her counsel to file an answer and from counsel's lack of vigilance in protecting her interests in subsequent proceedings before the trial court and the CA. Lastly, in Amil v. Court of Appeals,[30] the Court declared that an exception to the rule that a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel is when the negligence of the counsel is so gross that the client was deprived of his day in court, thereby also depriving the client of his property without due process of law.

GR No. 165408

2010-01-15

JAIME T. TORRES v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

PERALTA, J.

It is settled rule that the mistake of a counsel binds the client.[30] It is only in case of gross or palpable negligence of counsel when the courts must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby.[31]

GR NO. 151854

2008-09-03

PHILUX v. NLRC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The decision in Legarda v. Court of Appeals[24] also invoked by petitioners, that the alleged reckless, inexcusable and gross negligence of counsel resulted in the deprivation of the client's property without due process of law, was modified on reconsideration in our en banc Resolution dated October 16, 1997.[25] The Court held:xxx as long as a party was given the opportunity to defend her interests in due course, she cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. The chronology of events shows that the case took its regular course in the trial and appellate courts but Legarda's counsel failed to act as any ordinary counsel should have acted, his negligence every step of the way amounting to "abandonment, " in the words of the Gancayco decision. Yet, it cannot be denied that the proceedings which led to the filing of this case were not attended by any irregularity. The judgment by default was valid, so was the ensuing sale at public auction. If Cabrera was adjudged highest bidder in said auction sale, it was not through any machination on his part. All of his actuations that led to the final registration of the title in his name were aboveboard, untainted by any irregularity.

GR NO. 170102

2007-07-27

SPS. FRANCISCO AND GLORIA SALCEDO v. AMELIA MARINO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Petitioners' excuse that their counsel was burdened by "heavy workload" lacks merit. We cautioned lawyers to handle only as many cases as they can efficiently handle.[3] The zeal and fidelity demanded of a lawyer to his client's cause require that not only should he be qualified to handle a legal matter, he must also prepare adequately and give appropriate attention to his legal work. Since a client is, as a rule, bound by the acts of his counsel,[4] a lawyer, once he agrees to take a case, should undertake the task with dedication and care.[5] Failure of a lawyer to file a pleading constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part.[6]

GR NO. 165962

2007-07-06

VIRGINIA PEREZ CLAUDIO v. FRANCISCA QUEBRAL

TINGA, J.

We agree. The rule is that a client will suffer the consequences of the negligence, mistake or lack of competence of his counsel. While this Court is always mindful of this rule, in the interest of justice and equity, exceptions thereto may be made depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.[20] However, we do not consider the instant case as an exception to the said rule for two reasons: first, it cannot be said that respondent was deprived of her day in court and second, she failed to positively validate with proof her charge of gross and inexcusable negligence against her counsel.

GR No. 146611

2007-02-06

TANCREDO REDEÑA v. CA

GARCIA, J.

In Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[20] where the Court initially held that the counsel's failure to file pleadings at the trial court and later on appeal amounted to gross negligence, the Court, on motion of the respondent therein, granted reconsideration and applied the general rule binding the litigant to her counsel's negligence. In said case, the Court noted that the proceedings which led to the filing of the petition "were not attended by any irregularity." The same observation squarely applies here.

GR NO. 155737

2005-10-19

R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE HAWK TRANSPORT CORPORATION

QUISUMBING, J.

The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes of his counsel.[9] Exceptions to the foregoing have been recognized by the Court in the cases of Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[10] and Escudero v. Dulay,[11] such as when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when the application "results in the outright deprivation of one's property through a technicality."[12]

GR NO. 150739

2005-08-18

SPS. BENIGNO QUE AND ERLINDA QUE v. CA

CARPIO, J.

In Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[22] where the Court initially held that the counsel's failure to file pleadings at the trial court and later on appeal amounted to gross negligence, the Court, on respondent's motion, granted reconsideration and applied the general rule binding the litigant to her counsel's negligence. The Court noted that the proceedings which led to the filing of the petition in that case "were not attended by any irregularity." The same observation squarely applies here. Neither can petitioners rely on Boyer-Roxas v. Court of Appeals[23] because there, as here, the Court held that the petitioners' counsel was not grossly negligent.

AC. No. 6297

2004-07-13

DOLORES D. PARIÑAS v. ATTY. OSCAR P. PAGUINTO

CARPIO, J.

A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his case. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Hence, a lawyer must accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle, otherwise his clients' interests will suffer.[9] It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal matter. He must also give adequate attention to his legal work.

GR No. 128686

2004-05-28

HONORATO ESPINOSA v. CA

TINGA, J,

Citing the cases of Legarda v. Court of Appeals[26] and Alabanzas v. IAC[27], Espinosa invokes the exception to the general rule that a client need not be bound by the actions of counsel who is grossly and palpably negligent. These very cases cited demonstrate why Atty. Castillon's acts hardly constitute gross or palpable negligence. Legarda provides a textbook example of gross negligence on the part of the counsel. The Court therein noted the following negligent acts of lawyer Antonio Coronel: Petitioner's counsel is a well-known practicing lawyer and dean of a law school. It is to be expected that he would extend the highest quality of service as a lawyer to the petitioner. Unfortunately, counsel appears to have abandoned the cause of petitioner. After agreeing to defend the petitioner in the civil case filed against her by private respondent, said counsel did nothing more than enter his appearance and seek for an extension of time to file the answer. Nevertheless, he failed to file the answer. Hence, petitioner was declared in default on motion of private respondent's counsel. After the evidence of private respondent was received ex-parte, a judgment, was rendered by the trial court.

GR No. 128686

2004-05-28

HONORATO ESPINOSA v. CA

TINGA, J,

Said counsel for petitioner received a copy of the judgment but took no steps to have the same set aside or to appeal therefrom. Thus, the judgment became final and executory.[28]

GR No. 147995

2004-03-04

JESSIE MACALALAG v. OMBUDSMAN

VITUG, J.

Moreover, petitioner may no longer resort to the remedy of annulment of judgment after having filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. Neither can he claim that he is not bound by his lawyer's actions; it is only in case of gross or palpable negligence of counsel when the courts can step in and accord relief to a client who would have suffered thereby.[12] If every perceived mistake, failure of diligence, lack of experience or insufficient legal knowledge of the lawyer would be admitted as a reason for the reopening of a case, there would be no end to controversy. Fundamental to our judicial system is the principle that every litigation must come to an end. It would be a clear mockery if it were otherwise. Access to the courts is guaranteed, but there must be a limit to it.

AC. No. 5854

2003-09-30

NORA E. MIWA v. ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA

QUISUMBING, J.

We note also respondent's averment that work as campaign manager for a political party during the 2001 elections took too much of his time, and that this circumstance might have understandably prejudiced his client's cause. This Court must again remind lawyers to handle only as many cases as they can efficiently handle.[15] For it is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to handle a legal matter, he is also required to prepare adequately and give the appropriate attention to his legal work. A lawyer owes entire devotion to the cause of his client, warmth and zeal in the defense and maintenance of his rights, and the exertion of his learning and utmost ability that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with law. By failing to show zeal and fidelity to his client's cause, we are constrained to conclude that respondent acted with gross negligence.

	GR No. 194962 2016-01-27	CAGAYAN ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. MERIDIEN VISTA GAMING CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
Time and again, this Court has stressed that rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very strict and technical sense.[50] The rules are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed.[51] As pronounced in the case of Legarda vs. Court of Appeals:[52]
	GR No. 192866 2014-07-09	PEDRO G. RESURRECCION v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Nothing is more settled than the rule that the negligence and mistakes of the counsel are binding on the client.[18] The rationale behind this rule is that a counsel, once retained, is said to have the authority, albeit impliedly, to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution of the case in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of his authority is treated by law as the act or omission of the client himself.[19] It is only in cases involving gross or palpable negligence of the counsel, or when the application of the general rule amounts to an outright deprivation of one's property or liberty through technicality, or where the interests of justice so require, when relief is accorded to a client who has suffered thereby.[20]
	AC. No. 9310 2013-02-27	VERLEEN TRINIDAD v. ATTY. ANGELITO VILLARIN SERENO, C.J.
As the lawyer of Purence Realty, respondent is expected to champion the cause of his client with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.[19] This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense[20] including the institution of an ejectment case that is recognized by our property laws. In Legarda v. Court of Appeals, we held that in the full discharge of their duties to the client, lawyers shall not be afraid of the possibility that they may displease the general public.[21]
	GR No. 173559 2013-01-07	LETICIA DIONA v. SONNY A. BALANGUE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Respondents maintain that it was through no fault of their own, but through the gross negligence of their former counsel, Atty. Coroza, that the remedies of new trial, appeal or petition for relief from judgment were lost. They allege that after filing a Motion to Extend Period to Answer, Atty. Coroza did not file any pleading resulting to their being declared in default. While the said lawyer filed on their behalf a Motion to Set Aside Judgment dated January 26, 2001, he however took no steps to appeal from the Decision of the RTC, thereby allowing said judgment to lapse into finality. Citing Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[31] respondents aver that clients are not always bound by the actions of their counsel, as in the present case where the clients are to lose their property due to the gross negligence of their counsel.
	GR No. 156296 2012-11-12	DENNIS Q. MORTEL v. SALVADOR E. KERR BERSAMIN, J.
But the rule admits of exceptions. In several rulings, the Court held the client not concluded by the negligence, incompetence or mistake of the counsel. For instance, in Suarez v. Court of Appeals,[28] the Court set aside the judgment and mandated the trial court to reopen the case for the reception of the evidence for the defense after finding that the negligence of the therein petitioner's counsel had deprived her of the right to present and prove her defense. Also, in Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[29] the Court ordered restored to the petitioner her property that had been sold at public auction in satisfaction of a default judgment resulting from the failure of her counsel to file an answer and from counsel's lack of vigilance in protecting her interests in subsequent proceedings before the trial court and the CA. Lastly, in Amil v. Court of Appeals,[30] the Court declared that an exception to the rule that a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel is when the negligence of the counsel is so gross that the client was deprived of his day in court, thereby also depriving the client of his property without due process of law.
	GR No. 165408 2010-01-15	JAIME T. TORRES v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
It is settled rule that the mistake of a counsel binds the client.[30] It is only in case of gross or palpable negligence of counsel when the courts must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby.[31]
	GR NO. 151854 2008-09-03	PHILUX v. NLRC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The decision in Legarda v. Court of Appeals[24] also invoked by petitioners, that the alleged reckless, inexcusable and gross negligence of counsel resulted in the deprivation of the client's property without due process of law, was modified on reconsideration in our en banc Resolution dated October 16, 1997.[25] The Court held:xxx as long as a party was given the opportunity to defend her interests in due course, she cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. The chronology of events shows that the case took its regular course in the trial and appellate courts but Legarda's counsel failed to act as any ordinary counsel should have acted, his negligence every step of the way amounting to "abandonment, " in the words of the Gancayco decision. Yet, it cannot be denied that the proceedings which led to the filing of this case were not attended by any irregularity. The judgment by default was valid, so was the ensuing sale at public auction. If Cabrera was adjudged highest bidder in said auction sale, it was not through any machination on his part. All of his actuations that led to the final registration of the title in his name were aboveboard, untainted by any irregularity.
	GR NO. 170102 2007-07-27	SPS. FRANCISCO AND GLORIA SALCEDO v. AMELIA MARINO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Petitioners' excuse that their counsel was burdened by "heavy workload" lacks merit. We cautioned lawyers to handle only as many cases as they can efficiently handle.[3] The zeal and fidelity demanded of a lawyer to his client's cause require that not only should he be qualified to handle a legal matter, he must also prepare adequately and give appropriate attention to his legal work. Since a client is, as a rule, bound by the acts of his counsel,[4] a lawyer, once he agrees to take a case, should undertake the task with dedication and care.[5] Failure of a lawyer to file a pleading constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part.[6]
	GR NO. 165962 2007-07-06	VIRGINIA PEREZ CLAUDIO v. FRANCISCA QUEBRAL TINGA, J.
We agree. The rule is that a client will suffer the consequences of the negligence, mistake or lack of competence of his counsel. While this Court is always mindful of this rule, in the interest of justice and equity, exceptions thereto may be made depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.[20] However, we do not consider the instant case as an exception to the said rule for two reasons: first, it cannot be said that respondent was deprived of her day in court and second, she failed to positively validate with proof her charge of gross and inexcusable negligence against her counsel.
	GR No. 146611 2007-02-06	TANCREDO REDEÑA v. CA GARCIA, J.
In Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[20] where the Court initially held that the counsel's failure to file pleadings at the trial court and later on appeal amounted to gross negligence, the Court, on motion of the respondent therein, granted reconsideration and applied the general rule binding the litigant to her counsel's negligence. In said case, the Court noted that the proceedings which led to the filing of the petition "were not attended by any irregularity." The same observation squarely applies here.
	GR NO. 155737 2005-10-19	R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE HAWK TRANSPORT CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes of his counsel.[9] Exceptions to the foregoing have been recognized by the Court in the cases of Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[10] and Escudero v. Dulay,[11] such as when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when the application "results in the outright deprivation of one's property through a technicality."[12]
	GR NO. 150739 2005-08-18	SPS. BENIGNO QUE AND ERLINDA QUE v. CA CARPIO, J.
In Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[22] where the Court initially held that the counsel's failure to file pleadings at the trial court and later on appeal amounted to gross negligence, the Court, on respondent's motion, granted reconsideration and applied the general rule binding the litigant to her counsel's negligence. The Court noted that the proceedings which led to the filing of the petition in that case "were not attended by any irregularity." The same observation squarely applies here. Neither can petitioners rely on Boyer-Roxas v. Court of Appeals[23] because there, as here, the Court held that the petitioners' counsel was not grossly negligent.
	AC. No. 6297 2004-07-13	DOLORES D. PARIÑAS v. ATTY. OSCAR P. PAGUINTO CARPIO, J.
A lawyer should give adequate attention, care and time to his case. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with dedication and care. If he fails in this duty, he is not true to his oath as a lawyer. Hence, a lawyer must accept only as much cases as he can efficiently handle, otherwise his clients' interests will suffer.[9] It is not enough that a lawyer possesses the qualification to handle the legal matter. He must also give adequate attention to his legal work.
	GR No. 128686 2004-05-28	HONORATO ESPINOSA v. CA TINGA, J,
Citing the cases of Legarda v. Court of Appeals[26] and Alabanzas v. IAC[27], Espinosa invokes the exception to the general rule that a client need not be bound by the actions of counsel who is grossly and palpably negligent. These very cases cited demonstrate why Atty. Castillon's acts hardly constitute gross or palpable negligence. Legarda provides a textbook example of gross negligence on the part of the counsel. The Court therein noted the following negligent acts of lawyer Antonio Coronel: Petitioner's counsel is a well-known practicing lawyer and dean of a law school. It is to be expected that he would extend the highest quality of service as a lawyer to the petitioner. Unfortunately, counsel appears to have abandoned the cause of petitioner. After agreeing to defend the petitioner in the civil case filed against her by private respondent, said counsel did nothing more than enter his appearance and seek for an extension of time to file the answer. Nevertheless, he failed to file the answer. Hence, petitioner was declared in default on motion of private respondent's counsel. After the evidence of private respondent was received ex-parte, a judgment, was rendered by the trial court.
	GR No. 128686 2004-05-28	HONORATO ESPINOSA v. CA TINGA, J,
Said counsel for petitioner received a copy of the judgment but took no steps to have the same set aside or to appeal therefrom. Thus, the judgment became final and executory.[28]
	GR No. 147995 2004-03-04	JESSIE MACALALAG v. OMBUDSMAN VITUG, J.
Moreover, petitioner may no longer resort to the remedy of annulment of judgment after having filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. Neither can he claim that he is not bound by his lawyer's actions; it is only in case of gross or palpable negligence of counsel when the courts can step in and accord relief to a client who would have suffered thereby.[12] If every perceived mistake, failure of diligence, lack of experience or insufficient legal knowledge of the lawyer would be admitted as a reason for the reopening of a case, there would be no end to controversy. Fundamental to our judicial system is the principle that every litigation must come to an end. It would be a clear mockery if it were otherwise. Access to the courts is guaranteed, but there must be a limit to it.
	AC. No. 5854 2003-09-30	NORA E. MIWA v. ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA QUISUMBING, J.
We note also respondent's averment that work as campaign manager for a political party during the 2001 elections took too much of his time, and that this circumstance might have understandably prejudiced his client's cause. This Court must again remind lawyers to handle only as many cases as they can efficiently handle.[15] For it is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to handle a legal matter, he is also required to prepare adequately and give the appropriate attention to his legal work. A lawyer owes entire devotion to the cause of his client, warmth and zeal in the defense and maintenance of his rights, and the exertion of his learning and utmost ability that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with law. By failing to show zeal and fidelity to his client's cause, we are constrained to conclude that respondent acted with gross negligence.

VICTORIA LEGARDA v. CA