Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELMER F. GOMEZ v. MA. LITA A. MONTALBAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 211703 2014-12-10	EDELBERT C. UYBOCO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
As to petitioner's claim that his right to due process was denied due to his former counsel's error, abuse of discretion or gross incompetence, We find no merit in this claim. Time and again, this Court has ruled that a client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence and mistake in handling a case,[13] and to allow a client to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel.[14] While this rule has recognized exceptions,[15] We find that there is no reason for this Court to deviate from the findings of the Sandiganbayan. We held in Gotesco Properties, Inc. v. Moral:[16]
	GR No. 166923 2014-11-26	PHILIPPINE MIGRANTS RIGHTS WATCH v. OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION PERALTA, J.
Jurisdiction is the right to act or the power and authority to hear and determine a case.[9] It is conferred only by the Constitution or by statute.[10] The question as to whether or not the dismissal by the lower court for lack of jurisdiction is proper involves the determination of whether, admitting the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, the trial court has jurisdiction over the same in light of the laws governing jurisdiction.[11] As such, jurisdiction is neither a question of fact or of fact and law but a matter of law. For this reason, We have consistently held that a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is a question of law,[12] and have, in fact, affirmed dismissals by the CA of appeals brought to them involving pure questions of law.[13] Considering that only questions of law was raised in this petition, direct resort to this Court is proper.[14]
	GR No. 156296 2012-11-12	DENNIS Q. MORTEL v. SALVADOR E. KERR BERSAMIN, J.
As a rule, a client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence and mistake in handling a case.[26] To allow a client to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel.[27]
	GR No. 168973 2011-08-24	CITY OF DUMAGUETE v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[32]
	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]