This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-30 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Relief from judgment is an equitable remedy; it is allowed only in exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy.[31] And its determination rests with the court. In the instant case, certain attending facts and circumstances, as shall be set forth below, make for an exceptional case for allowing relief from judgment. | |||||
|
2009-01-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Negligence to be excusable must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against.[30] Petitioners' counsel filed a notice of appeal within the reglementary period for filing the same without, however, paying the appellate docket fees. Counsel very well knew that under the Rules of Court, the full amount of appellate docket and other lawful fees must be paid within the same period that the notice of appeal was filed, as he even allegedly communicated to the clerk of court his request for additional time in order to consolidate the confirmation of petitioners' desire to appeal. | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Negligence to be excusable must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against.[34] Under Section 1, the "negligence" must be excusable and generally imputable to the party because if it is imputable to the counsel, it is binding on the client.[35] To follow a contrary rule and allow a party to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel. What the aggrieved litigant should do is seek administrative sanctions against the erring counsel and not ask for the reversal of the court's ruling.[36] | |||||