Lawyerly

GR No. 180559

2016-01-20

ANECITA GREGORIO v. MARIA CRISOLOGO VDA. DE CULIG

JARDELEZA, J.

In Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[52] we declared that the failure to file a motion for reconsideration is only simple negligence, since it did not necessarily deny due process to his client party who had the opportunity to be heard at some point of the proceedings. In Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad,[53] we held that the question is not whether petitioner succeeded in defending its rights and interests, but simply, whether it had the opportunity to present its side of the controversy. Verily, as petitioner retained the services of counsel of its choice, it should, as far as this suit is concerned, bear the consequences of its choice of a faulty option.[54]

GR No. 214865

2015-08-19

ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

Furthermore, the oft-cited doctrine is that the negligence of counsel binds his client.[19] This is based on the rule that any act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client. While, truly, there are situations where the Court can relax procedural rules, such exceptions do not obtain in the extant case.

GR No. 206612

2015-08-17

TOYOTA ALABANG v. EDWIN GAMES

SERENO, C.J.

Generally, the negligence of counsel binds the client. Nonetheless, the courts accord relief to the client who suffers by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake: (a) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (b) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (c) where the interests of justice[31] or equity[32] so require. These exceptions obtain in this case.

GR No. 193861

2012-03-14

PAULITA “EDITH” SERRA v. NELFA T. MUMAR

CARPIO, J.

By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[28]

GR No. 190521

2011-01-12

LETICIA TAN v. OMC CARRIERS

BRION, J.

Similarly, in Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad,[33] we deleted the award of damages for loss of earning capacity for lack of evidentiary basis of the actual extent of the loss. Nevertheless, because the income-earning capacity lost was clearly established, we awarded the heirs P500,000.00 as temperate damages.

GR No. 157009

2010-03-17

SULPICIO LINES v. DOMINGO E. CURSO

BERSAMIN, J.

As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract, unless there is fraud or bad faith.[8] As an exception, moral damages may be awarded in case of breach of contract of carriage that results in the death of a passenger,[9] in accordance with Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206 (3), of the Civil Code, which provide: Article 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier.

GR No. 180817

2009-06-23

MULTI-TRANS AGENCY PHILS. INC. v. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORP.

One of the grounds for the granting of a new trial under Section 1 of Rule 37 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is excusable negligence.[45] It is settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. This is based on the rule that any act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client.[46] Consequently, the mistake or negligence of counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against the client.[47] We have, however, carved out exceptions to this rule; as where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; or where the application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or where the interests of justice so requires and relief ought to be accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[48] In order to apply the exceptions rather than the rule, the circumstances obtaining in each case must be looked into. In cases where one of the exceptions is present, the courts must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby.[49]

GR No. 179556

2009-02-13

CONCORDIA MEDEL GOMEZ v. CORAZON MEDEL ALCANTARA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Also, in Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad,[34] the Court held that:The question is not whether petitioner succeeded in defending its rights and interests, but simply, whether it had the opportunity to present its side of the controversy. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 170141

2008-04-22

JAPAN AIRLINES v. JESUS SIMANGAN

REYES, R.T., J.

JAL is also liable for exemplary damages as its above-mentioned acts constitute wanton, oppressive and malevolent acts against respondent. Exemplary damages, which are awarded by way of example or correction for the public good, may be recovered in contractual obligations, as in this case, if defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.[68]

GR No. 155604

2007-11-22

COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN v. BELFRANLT DEVELOPMENT INC.

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The CA deleted the award of actual damages of P2.2 million which the RTC had granted respondent to cover costs of building repairs. In lieu of actual damages, temperate damages in the amount of P500,000.00 were awarded by the CA. We find this in order.[38]

GR No. 166800 & 168924

2007-09-25

LECA REALTY CORPORATION v. MANUELA CORPORATION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.[12]

GR NO. 147791

2006-09-08

CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. REBECCA G. ESTRELLA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Regarding the imposition of legal interest at the rate of 6% from the time of the filing of the complaint, we held in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[30] that when an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi- contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for payment of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages,[31] subject to the following rules, to wit -

GR No. 165767

2005-11-29

SPS. WILLIAM G. FRIEND AND MARIA RENEE FRIEND AND JOHN DOE v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad,[14] we held that:... [T]o sustain petitioner's arguments that it was denied due process of law due to negligence of its counsel would set a dangerous precedent. It would enable every party to render inutile any adverse order or decision through the simple expedient of alleging gross negligence on the part of its counsel. The Court will not countenance such a farce which contradicts long-settled doctrines of trial and procedure.[15]

GR NO. 163351

2005-06-21

ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPAÑA v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

The lack of documentary evidence notwithstanding, since loss was actually established in this case, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 each may be awarded to the heirs of So and Castro, respectively. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate or moderate damages (which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages) may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss was suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty.[17]

	GR No. 180559 2016-01-20	ANECITA GREGORIO v. MARIA CRISOLOGO VDA. DE CULIG JARDELEZA, J.
In Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[52] we declared that the failure to file a motion for reconsideration is only simple negligence, since it did not necessarily deny due process to his client party who had the opportunity to be heard at some point of the proceedings. In Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad,[53] we held that the question is not whether petitioner succeeded in defending its rights and interests, but simply, whether it had the opportunity to present its side of the controversy. Verily, as petitioner retained the services of counsel of its choice, it should, as far as this suit is concerned, bear the consequences of its choice of a faulty option.[54]
	GR No. 214865 2015-08-19	ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, the oft-cited doctrine is that the negligence of counsel binds his client.[19] This is based on the rule that any act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client. While, truly, there are situations where the Court can relax procedural rules, such exceptions do not obtain in the extant case.
	GR No. 206612 2015-08-17	TOYOTA ALABANG v. EDWIN GAMES SERENO, C.J.
Generally, the negligence of counsel binds the client. Nonetheless, the courts accord relief to the client who suffers by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake: (a) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (b) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (c) where the interests of justice[31] or equity[32] so require. These exceptions obtain in this case.
	GR No. 193861 2012-03-14	PAULITA “EDITH” SERRA v. NELFA T. MUMAR CARPIO, J.
By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[28]
	GR No. 190521 2011-01-12	LETICIA TAN v. OMC CARRIERS BRION, J.
Similarly, in Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad,[33] we deleted the award of damages for loss of earning capacity for lack of evidentiary basis of the actual extent of the loss. Nevertheless, because the income-earning capacity lost was clearly established, we awarded the heirs P500,000.00 as temperate damages.
	GR No. 157009 2010-03-17	SULPICIO LINES v. DOMINGO E. CURSO BERSAMIN, J.
As a general rule, moral damages are not recoverable in actions for damages predicated on a breach of contract, unless there is fraud or bad faith.[8] As an exception, moral damages may be awarded in case of breach of contract of carriage that results in the death of a passenger,[9] in accordance with Article 1764, in relation to Article 2206 (3), of the Civil Code, which provide: Article 1764. Damages in cases comprised in this Section shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII of this Book, concerning Damages. Article 2206 shall also apply to the death of a passenger caused by the breach of contract by a common carrier.
	GR No. 180817 2009-06-23	MULTI-TRANS AGENCY PHILS. INC. v. ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORP.
One of the grounds for the granting of a new trial under Section 1 of Rule 37 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is excusable negligence.[45] It is settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. This is based on the rule that any act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client.[46] Consequently, the mistake or negligence of counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against the client.[47] We have, however, carved out exceptions to this rule; as where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; or where the application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or where the interests of justice so requires and relief ought to be accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[48] In order to apply the exceptions rather than the rule, the circumstances obtaining in each case must be looked into. In cases where one of the exceptions is present, the courts must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby.[49]
	GR No. 179556 2009-02-13	CONCORDIA MEDEL GOMEZ v. CORAZON MEDEL ALCANTARA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Also, in Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad,[34] the Court held that:The question is not whether petitioner succeeded in defending its rights and interests, but simply, whether it had the opportunity to present its side of the controversy. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 170141 2008-04-22	JAPAN AIRLINES v. JESUS SIMANGAN REYES, R.T., J.
JAL is also liable for exemplary damages as its above-mentioned acts constitute wanton, oppressive and malevolent acts against respondent. Exemplary damages, which are awarded by way of example or correction for the public good, may be recovered in contractual obligations, as in this case, if defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.[68]
	GR No. 155604 2007-11-22	COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN v. BELFRANLT DEVELOPMENT INC. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The CA deleted the award of actual damages of P2.2 million which the RTC had granted respondent to cover costs of building repairs. In lieu of actual damages, temperate damages in the amount of P500,000.00 were awarded by the CA. We find this in order.[38]
	GR No. 166800 & 168924 2007-09-25	LECA REALTY CORPORATION v. MANUELA CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.[12]
	GR NO. 147791 2006-09-08	CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. REBECCA G. ESTRELLA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Regarding the imposition of legal interest at the rate of 6% from the time of the filing of the complaint, we held in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[30] that when an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi- contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for payment of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages,[31] subject to the following rules, to wit -
	GR No. 165767 2005-11-29	SPS. WILLIAM G. FRIEND AND MARIA RENEE FRIEND AND JOHN DOE v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad,[14] we held that:... [T]o sustain petitioner's arguments that it was denied due process of law due to negligence of its counsel would set a dangerous precedent. It would enable every party to render inutile any adverse order or decision through the simple expedient of alleging gross negligence on the part of its counsel. The Court will not countenance such a farce which contradicts long-settled doctrines of trial and procedure.[15]
	GR NO. 163351 2005-06-21	ANTONIO V. NUEVA ESPAÑA v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The lack of documentary evidence notwithstanding, since loss was actually established in this case, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 each may be awarded to the heirs of So and Castro, respectively. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate or moderate damages (which are more than nominal but less than compensatory damages) may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss was suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty.[17]

VICTORY LINER v. ROSALITO GAMMAD