Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS.

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 179491 2015-01-14	ALEJANDRO C. ALMENDRAS v. ALEXIS C. ALMENDRAS SERENO, C.J.
Petitioner was given several opportunities to present his evidence or to clarify his medical constraints in court, but he did not do so, despite knowing full well that he had a pending case in court. For petitioner to feign and repeatedly insist upon a lack of awareness of the progress of an important litigation is to unmask a penchant for the ludicrous. Although he rightfully expected counsel to amply protect his interest, he cannot just sit back, relax and await the outcome of the case. In keeping with the normal course of events, he should have taken the initiative "of making the proper inquiries from his counsel and the trial court as to the status of his case." For his failure to do so, he has only himself to blame.[19] The Court cannot allow petitioner the exception to the general rule just because his counsel admitted having no knowledge of his medical condition. To do so will set a dangerous precedent of never-ending suits, so long as lawyers could allege their own fault or negligence to support the client's case and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by the operation of law.[20]
	GR No. 178984 2009-08-19	ERLINDA MAPAGAY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is indeed settled that the omission or negligence of counsel binds the client. This is more true if the client did not make a periodic check on the progress of her case. Otherwise, there would be no end to a suit, so long as a new counsel could be employed who would allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned.[40]
	GR No. 150206 2009-03-13	HEIRS OF TEOFILO GABATAN v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In general, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Questions of fact cannot be the subject of this particular mode of appeal, for this Court is not a trier of facts.[8] It is not our function to examine and evaluate the probative value of the evidence presented before the concerned tribunal upon which its impugned decision or resolution is based.[9]
	GR NO. 156248 2007-08-28	MARISSA CENIZA-MANANTAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Settled is the rule that mistake and negligence of a counsel bind his client. The basis is the tenet that an act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client. Consequently, the mistake or negligence of a counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against his client.[39]
	GR NO. 167245 2006-09-27	ELPIDIO S. UY v. FIRST METRO INTEGRATED STEEL CORP. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner's argument that his counsel's negligence was so gross that he was deprived of due process fails to impress. Gross negligence is not one of the grounds for a motion for a new trial. We cannot declare his counsel's negligence as gross as to liberate him from the effects of his failure to present countervailing evidence.[29] In Air Philippines Corporation v. International Business Aviation Services, Phils., Inc.,[30] we did not consider as gross negligence the counsel's resort to dilatory schemes, such as (1) the filing of at least three motions to extend the filing of petitioner's Answer; (2) his nonappearance during the scheduled pretrials; and (3) the failure to file petitioner's pretrial Brief, even after the filing of several Motions to extend the date for filing.
	GR NO. 129434 2006-08-18	TRANS MIDDLE EAST EQUITIES v. SANDIGANBAYAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Where the opportunity to be heard, either through verbal arguments or pleadings, is accorded, and the party can present its side or defend its interests in due course, there is no denial of procedural due process.[8] What is repugnant to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard,[9] which is not present here.
	GR NOS. 169131-32 2006-01-20	LULLETE S. KO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
[9] Air Philippines Corporation v. International Business Aviation Services Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 151963, September 9, 2004, 438 SCRA 51, 67.
	GR NO. 156894 2005-12-02	GUILLERMO A. CRUZ v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Further, Baylon cannot be applied in this case. In Baylon, there was no negligence on the part of the client. Moreover, here we must stress that negligence of counsel binds the client. This is especially true where the client has been as negligent as the lawyer.[12]
	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.
The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. Where the opportunity to be heard, either through verbal arguments or pleadings, is accorded, and the party can "present its side" or defend its "interest in due course", there is no denial of procedural due process.[12]