This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-06-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Extrinsic fraud is that perpetrated by the prevailing party, not by the unsuccessful party's own counsel.[31] As a general rule, counsel's ineptitude is not a ground to annul judgment, for the latter's management of the case binds his client.[32] The rationale behind this rule is that, once retained, counsel holds the implied authority to do all acts which are necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, and any act performed by said counsel within the scope of such authority is, in the eyes of the law, regarded as the act of the client himself.[33] | |||||
|
2006-05-03 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| There have been exceptions, however, in which the Court dispensed with technical infirmities and gave due course to tardy appeals. In some of those instances, the presence of any justifying circumstance recognized by law -- such as fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence -- properly vested the judge with discretion to approve or admit an appeal filed out of time.[16] In other instances, lapsed appeals were allowed in order to serve substantial justice, upon consideration of a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; c) the merits of the case; d) causes not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party that would be favored by the suspension of the rules; e) the failure to show that the review being sought was merely frivolous and dilatory; and f) the fact that the other party would not be unjustly prejudiced.[17] | |||||