Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LTS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. JOCELYN D. MALIWAT

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 194962 2016-01-27	CAGAYAN ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. MERIDIEN VISTA GAMING CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
Relief from judgment is a remedy provided by law to any person against whom a decision or order is entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.[27] This remedy is equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy provided by law or the rules.[28] Generally, relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to the negligence of his counsel[29] because of the time-honored principle that clients are bound by the mistakes and negligence of their counsel.[30]
	GR No. 194122 2012-10-11	HECTOR HERNANDEZ v. SUSAN SAN PEDRO AGONCILLO PERALTA, J.
It bears stressing that a lawyer has the responsibility of monitoring and keeping track of the period of time left to file pleadings, and to see to it that said pleadings are filed before the lapse of the period.[34] If he fails to do so, his client is bound by his conduct, negligence and mistakes.[35] In the present case, petitioner and his counsel knew and should have known of the periods within which they are to file their pleadings. In fact, with respect to their Answer, they should be aware that they had only until July 21, 2007 to file the same because they were the ones who requested for an extension of time to file the said Answer. It was incumbent on petitioners' counsel to arrange his workload and attend to important and pressing matters such that pleadings are filed within the prescribed period therefor.[36] If the failure of the petitioners' counsel to cope with his heavy workload should be considered a valid justification to sidestep the reglementary period, there would be no end to litigations so long as counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced.[37]
	GR No. 171053 2007-10-15	SEHWANI v. IN-N-OUT BURGER YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
x x x x Dismiss the appeal for being patently without merit, provided that the dismissal shall be outright if the appeal is not filed within the prescribed period or for failure of the appellant to pay the required fee within the period of appeal.[22] (Underscoring supplied) Petitioners' allegation that they honestly believed that they received Resolution No. 2004-18 dated October 28, 2004 on November 3, 2004 and not on October 29, 2004, as what appears on the records of the BLA-IPO, is self-serving and unbelievable. The inadvertent computation of the period for one to file a pleading is inexcusable, and has become an all too familiar and ready excuse on the part of lawyers remiss in their bounden duty to comply with the mandatory periods.[23]
	GR Nos. 172760-61 2007-10-15	KAREN AND KRISTY FISHING INDUSTRY AND SPS. HELIODORO TUVILLA AND AQUILINA TUVILLA v. CA TINGA, J,
Thus, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners' motion for additional time to file the motion for reconsideration in accordance with the well-settled principle that no extension for filing said motion may be granted. As a rule, periods prescribed to do certain acts must be followed with fealty as they are designed primarily to speed up the final disposition of the case. Such reglementary periods are indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for an orderly discharge of judicial business. Deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated. More importantly, their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of the parties. What is worrisome is that parties who fail to file their pleading within the periods provided for by the Rules of Court, through their counsel's inexcusable neglect, resort to beseeching the Court to bend the rules in the guise of a plea for a liberal interpretation thereof, thus, sacrificing efficiency and order.[21]
	AM NO. MTJ-06-1655 2007-03-06	LEONARDO R. OCAMPO v. GINA M. BIBAT-PALAMOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a rule, the prescribed periods for the performance of certain acts must be followed with fealty as they are designed primarily to speed up the final disposition of the case. Such reglementary periods are indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for an orderly discharge of judicial business. Deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated. More importantly, its observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of the parties.[6]