This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
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] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| 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] Utter disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.[16] | |||||