Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. ERNESTO ZARATE AND MA. ROSARIO ZARATE v. MAYBANK PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 172785-86 2009-06-18	CRUZVALE v. JOSE ARMANDO L. EDUQUE QUISUMBING, J.
Finally, petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration was a second motion for reconsideration with regard to the dismissal of the criminal charge for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) against Joson. Although it assailed two different orders of two different judges, the matter being questioned was the same. We reiterate that the propriety or acceptability of a second motion for reconsideration is not contingent upon the averment of "new" grounds to assail the judgment.[29]
	GR No. 165258 2008-02-04	ROSITA L. FLAMINIANO a.k.a. ROSE FLAMINIANO v. ARSENIO P. ADRIANO QUISUMBING, J.
Considering the circumstances of this case and the contentions of the parties, we are in agreement that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by public respondent. Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of personal hostility.[12]
	GR NO. 158867 2006-08-22	JIMMY BANTING v. SPS. JOSE MAGLAPUZ AND RAYMUNDA BANDIN MAGLAPUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The excuse proffered by counsel for petitioners for their failure to file the memorandum of appeal did not help their cause any. Assuming that he did not receive copy of the September 27, 2002 Order, he could have nonetheless informed himself of this requirement by checking on the progress of the case from time to time. A counsel is required to inquire about the status of the cases assigned to him and the motions he has filed for a client.[50] He cannot pass this burden to his client and blame the latter for every mishap.[51] It was therefore due to the inexcusable negligence of counsel that the memorandum on appeal was not filed on time.
	GR NO. 143664 2006-06-30	MARISON C. BASUEL v. FACT-FINDING AZCUNA, J.
The general rule is that the mistake and negligence of counsel are binding on the client.[17] This is based on the principle that any act performed by the lawyer within the scope of the express or implied authority is regarded as an act of the client.[18] Otherwise, there would be no end to a suit so long as a new counsel could be employed who would allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned.[19]