This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Thus, a party is not entitled to relief under Rule 38, Section 2, of the Rules of Court if he was not prevented from filing his notice of appeal by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Such relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of the judgment, when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence or to a mistaken mode of procedure for that matter; otherwise, the petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal, which has already been lost either due to inexcusable negligence or due to a mistake of procedure by counsel.[44] | |||||
|
2009-01-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The failure of petitioners' counsel to perfect the appeal binds petitioners. It is settled that clients are bound by the mistakes, negligence and omission of their counsel.[37] While, exceptionally, the client may be excused from the failure of counsel, the factual circumstances in the present case do not give us sufficient reason to suspend the rules of the most mandatory character. Petitioners themselves may not be said to be entirely faultless. | |||||