Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AGUSTINA SENO TAN v. PACITA GANLAG TAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175788 2009-06-30	ENRIQUITA ANGAT v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible.[25] Provisions of the Rules of Court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done or certain proceedings taken are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial businesses. Strict compliance with such rules is mandatory and imperative.[26]
	GR No. 174536 2008-10-29	ROBERTO Y. PONCIANO v. LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible.[35] Provisions of the Rules of Court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial businesses. Strict compliance with such rules is mandatory and imperative.[36]
	GR No. 143786 2008-10-17	SPS. LOURDES V. RUTAQUIO AND LEONARDO LIWANAG v. LOPEZ NACHURA, J.
Thus, we take exception to the general rule that the mistakes and negligence of counsel binds the client.[19] In view of the circumstances surrounding this case, we opt for liberality in the application of the rules considering that - First, the rule that negligence of counsel binds the client may be relaxed where adherence thereto would result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property, or where the interests of justice so require, and Second, this Court is not a slave to technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. In rendering justice, it is guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights. Accordingly, if the application of the rules tends to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within this Court's power to suspend the rules or except a particular case from its application.[20]
	GR No. 160753 2004-09-30	JIMMY L. BARNES v. MA. LUISA QUIJANO PADILLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Indubitably, the explanation of petitioner's counsel that he is a sole legal practitioner and simply needed time to adequately prepare the motion for reconsideration is not a valid excuse. As a general rule, a client is bound by the acts of his counsel, including even the latter's mistakes and negligence. However, where such mistakes or neglect would result in serious injustice to the client, a departure from this rule is warranted.[46] To cling to the general rule is to condone rather than rectify a serious injustice to petitioner whose only fault was to repose his faith and entrust his innocence to his lawyer.