Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 181760 2014-10-14	ATTY. ANACLETO B. BUENA v. DR. SANGCAD D. BENITO LEONEN, J.
That "the case was not properly calendared in the list of due dates of the . . . Associate Solicitor [handling the case]"[55] and the Associate Solicitor's "overwhelming workload"[56] do not justify counsel's failure to file the memorandum on behalf of the Regional Office. We have ruled that heavy workload is no excuse for failure to comply with the reglementary periods under the Rules.[57]
	GR NO. 146979 2006-07-27	HIKOI SUZUKI v. DIANA DE GUZMAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is an elementary principle in law that negligence of counsel binds the client.[37] This is based on the rule that any act performed by a lawyer within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client.[38] Thus, the invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" is not a magic wand that automatically compels courts to suspend procedural rules. Except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed, procedural rules must be followed.[39]