Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LYNX INDUSTRIES CONTRACTOR v. EUSTERIO T. TALA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 165544 2009-10-02	ROMEO SAMONTE v. S.F. NAGUIAT PERALTA, J.
There is no rule more settled than that a client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence and mistake in handling the case.[13] To 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.[14] Petitioner failed to show that his counsel's negligence was so gross and palpable as to call for the exercise of this Court's equity jurisdiction. While it is true that rules of procedure are not cast in stone, it is equally true that strict compliance with the Rules is indispensable for the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business.[15]
	GR No. 174238 2009-07-07	ANITA CHENG v. SPS. WILLIAM SY AND TESSIE SY NACHURA, J.
It is true that clients are bound by the mistakes, negligence and omission of their counsel.[22] But this rule admits of exceptions - (1) where the counsel's mistake is so great and serious that the client is prejudiced and denied his day in court, or (2) where the counsel is guilty of gross negligence resulting in the client's deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law.[23] Tested against these guidelines, we hold that petitioner's lot falls within the exceptions.
	GR No. 168848 2009-06-30	HEIRS OF LATE JOSE DE LUZURIAGA v. REPUBLIC THRU OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL VELASCO JR., J.
While the reglementary periods fixed under the rules for relief from judgment are mandatory in character,[26] procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance may, in the interest of substantial justice, be relaxed.[27] Since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, they are not to be applied with severity and rigidity when such application would clearly defeat the very rationale for their existence. In line with this postulate, the Court can and will relax or altogether suspend the application of the rules, or except a particular case from the rules' operation when their rigid application tends to frustrate rather than promote the ends of justice.[28]