This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-07-09 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| "For a claim of a counsel's [gross] negligence to prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the client's cause must be shown."[27] "[T]he gross negligence[, too,] should not be accompanied by the client's own negligence or malice."[28] | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Although the petitioners' former counsel was blameworthy for the track their case had taken, there is no question that any act performed by the counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is still regarded as an act of the client. In view of this, even the negligence of the former counsel should bind them as his clients.[31] To hold otherwise would result to the untenable situation in which every defeated party, in order to salvage his cause, would simply claim neglect or mistake on the part of his counsel as a ground for reversing the adverse judgment. There would then be no end to litigation, for every shortcoming of the counsel could become the subject of challenge by his client through another counsel who, if he should also be found wanting, would similarly be disowned by the same client through yet another counsel, and so on ad infinitum.[32] This chain of laying blame could render court proceedings indefinite, tentative and subject to reopening at any time by the mere replacement of the counsel.[33] | |||||
|
2012-02-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Gross negligence exists where there is want, or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of care. It involves a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.[71] As the above discussions show, the State failed to clearly establish the gross negligence on the part of the special prosecutor (or to show or even allege that there was collusion in the principal case between the special prosecutor and the respondents) that resulted in depriving the petitioner of its due process rights; and, consequently prevent the application of the rule on double jeopardy. If at all, what the records emphasized, as previously discussed, is the weakness of the prosecution's evidence as a whole rather than the gross negligence of the special prosecutor. In these lights, we must reject the petitioner's position. | |||||