Lawyerly

GR No. 193966

2014-02-19

DESIGN SOURCES INTERNATIONAL INC. v. LOURDES L. ERISTINGCOL

SERENO, C.J.

Respondent is bound by the acts of her counsel, including mistakes in the realm of procedural techniques.[12] The exception to the said rule does not apply herein, considering that there is no showing that she was thereby deprived of due process. At any rate, respondent is not without recourse even if the court allows the presentation of the testimony of Stephen, considering the availability of remedies during or after the presentation of witnesses, including but not limited to the impeachment of testimonies.

GR No. 176834

2012-11-21

GOTESCO PROPERTIES v. SPS. EDNA AND ALBERTO MORAL

CARPIO, J.

The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique.[12] The basis is the tenet that an act performed by counsel within the scope of a "general or implied authority" is regarded as an act of the client.[13] While the application of this general rule certainly depends upon the surrounding circumstances of a given case, there are exceptions recognized by this Court: "(1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require."[14]

GR No. 177995

2011-06-15

HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost.[17]

GR NO. 151973

2009-07-23

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. LORENZO L. LAOHOO

PERALTA, J.

The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique. The exception to this rule is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.[54] The failure of a party's counsel to notify him on time of the adverse judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence, which is not excusable. Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face.[55]

GR NO. 154717

2009-06-19

BONIFACIO M. MEJILLANO v. ENRIQUE LUCILLO

QUISUMBING, J.

Also, the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.[28] An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. In other words, he who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must play by the rules.[29] This, the petitioner failed to do when he did not submit his memorandum on appeal.

GR No. 173637

2009-04-21

DANTE T. TAN v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioner's objection to the prosecution's stand that he gave an implied consent to the separate trial of Criminal Case No. 119830 is belied by the records of the case. No objection was interposed by his defense counsel when this matter was discussed during the initial hearing.[33] Petitioner's conformity thereto can be deduced from his non-objection at the preliminary hearing when the prosecution manifested that the evidence to be presented would be only for Criminal Cases No. 119831-119832. His failure to object to the prosecution's manifestation that the cases be tried separately is fatal to his case. The acts, mistakes and negligence of counsel bind his client, except only when such mistakes would result in serious injustice.[34] In fact, petitioner's acquiescence is evident from the transcript of stenographic notes during the initial presentation of the People's evidence in the five BW cases on 27 February 2001, herein quoted below:COURT: Atty. Sandejas, call your witness.

GR No. 165471

2008-07-21

EMETERIO O. PASIONA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In a number of cases wherein the factual milieu confronted by the aggrieved party was much graver than the one being faced by herein petitioner, the Court struck down the argument that the aggrieved parties were denied due process of law because they had the opportunity to be heard at some point of the proceedings even if they had not been able to fully exhaust all the remedies available by reason of their counsel's negligence or mistake. Thus, in Dela Cruz v. Andres,[16] the Court held that "where a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the essence of due process."[17] In the earlier case of Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[18] the decision of the trial court attained finality by reason of counsel's failure to timely file a notice of appeal but the Court still ruled that such negligence did not deprive petitioner of due process of law. As elucidated by the Court in said case, to wit: "The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. x x x Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process."

GR NO. 149200

2006-07-14

ABRAHAM ONG v. CIBA GEIGY

CORONA, J.

The general rule is that the client is bound by the actuation of his counsel in the conduct of the case and cannot be heard to complain that the result of the litigation might have been different had his counsel proceeded differently. In criminal cases, as well as in civil cases, it has frequently been held that the fact that blunders and mistakes may have been made in the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of counsel does not constitute a ground for new trial.[9] The exception to this rule is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.[10]

GR NO. 155737

2005-10-19

R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE HAWK TRANSPORT CORPORATION

QUISUMBING, J.

In like manner, the case at bar is different from the Escudero case where there were "outright" deprivations of property without due process of law. In the case before us, petitioner, through counsel filed its Answer with Counterclaim and Answer to Cross-claim. Counsel also cross-examined the witnesses of the respondent. Likewise, petitioner was given several opportunities to present evidence in its defense.[13] The essence of due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence one may have in support of one's defense.[14] Here, we find no deprivation of due process.

GR NO. 164736

2005-10-14

UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION v. BENITO CATAPANG

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is, therefore, evident from the foregoing that the present petition was filed way beyond the reglementary period. Hence, its outright dismissal would be proper. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[37] Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.[38]

GR No. 159636

2004-11-25

VICTORY LINER v. ROSALITO GAMMAD

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Viewed vis-à-vis the foregoing jurisprudence, to sustain petitioner's argument 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.[33]

GR No. 148189

2004-11-11

EMERITO REMULLA v. JOSELITO DP. MANLONGAT

PANGANIBAN, J.

Generally, the right to appeal is not constitutional, natural or inherent;[9] it is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in accordance with the provisions of the law.[10] It has thus been held that the failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and within the period allowed by law[11] renders the questioned decision final and executory and precludes the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction to review it.[12]

GR No. 136350

2004-10-25

SPS. IKE S. BARZA AND ZENAIDA A. BARZA v. SPS. RAFAEL S. DINGLASAN

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Settled is the rule that a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel.[21] The only exception is when the negligence of the counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court. In such instance, the remedy is to reopen the case and allow the party who was denied his day in court to adduce evidence.[22] Perusing the case at bar, we find no reason to depart from the general rule.

GR No. 136350

2004-10-25

SPS. IKE S. BARZA AND ZENAIDA A. BARZA v. SPS. RAFAEL S. DINGLASAN

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Petitioners, as plaintiffs a quo, were given ample opportunity to present their case despite the several postponements asked by their counsel. Records show that the trial court allowed petitioners a total of twenty-eight postponements, in a span of seven years, from the time the case was filed on March 22, 1984 until its dismissal on April 17, 1991. They cannot claim, therefore, that they were deprived of their day in court. As we have repeatedly stated, due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.[23] So long as a party is given the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process.[24]

GR No. 136350

2004-10-25

SPS. IKE S. BARZA AND ZENAIDA A. BARZA v. SPS. RAFAEL S. DINGLASAN

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As petitioners themselves pointed out, they were represented by a law firm. This meant that any of its members could lawfully act as their counsel during the trial. Petitioners, however, should not have expected that all they needed to do was sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case. To do so would enable every party to render inutile any adverse order or decision through the simple expedience of alleging gross negligence on the part of its counsel. [31]

GR No. 152494

2004-09-22

MARIANO ONG v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Time and again it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.[11]

GR No. 133805

2004-06-29

AGUSTINA SENO TAN v. PACITA GANLAG TAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

As earlier mentioned, petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision was denied for having been filed beyond the 15 day reglementary period. For her predicament, she blamed her former lawyer, Atty. Eutiquio A. Cajes. Petitioner should have known that "the client is bound by the acts of his counsel, even his mistakes and negligence."[6] We observe though that she is not entirely blameless for the denial of her motion for reconsideration. In Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,[7] we held that "litigants, represented by counsel, should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case." Indeed, it is their duty as litigants to keep in constant touch with their counsel so as to be posted on the status of their case.[8]

GR No. 136726

2003-09-24

PANFILO V. VILLARUEL v. REYNALDO D. FERNANDO

CARPIO, J.

Due process, in essence, is simply an opportunity to be heard[19] and this opportunity was not denied petitioner. Throughout the proceedings in the trial court as well as in the Court of Appeals, petitioner had the opportunity to present his side but he failed to do so. Clearly, petitioner's former counsel, the OSG, was negligent. This negligence, however, binds petitioner. The trial and appellate courts correctly ruled that the negligence of the OSG could not relieve petitioner of the effects such negligence[20] and prevent the decision of the trial court from becoming final and executory.

	GR No. 193966 2014-02-19	DESIGN SOURCES INTERNATIONAL INC. v. LOURDES L. ERISTINGCOL SERENO, C.J.
Respondent is bound by the acts of her counsel, including mistakes in the realm of procedural techniques.[12] The exception to the said rule does not apply herein, considering that there is no showing that she was thereby deprived of due process. At any rate, respondent is not without recourse even if the court allows the presentation of the testimony of Stephen, considering the availability of remedies during or after the presentation of witnesses, including but not limited to the impeachment of testimonies.
	GR No. 176834 2012-11-21	GOTESCO PROPERTIES v. SPS. EDNA AND ALBERTO MORAL CARPIO, J.
The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique.[12] The basis is the tenet that an act performed by counsel within the scope of a "general or implied authority" is regarded as an act of the client.[13] While the application of this general rule certainly depends upon the surrounding circumstances of a given case, there are exceptions recognized by this Court: "(1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require."[14]
	GR No. 177995 2011-06-15	HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost.[17]
	GR NO. 151973 2009-07-23	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. LORENZO L. LAOHOO PERALTA, J.
The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique. The exception to this rule is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.[54] The failure of a party's counsel to notify him on time of the adverse judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence, which is not excusable. Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face.[55]
	GR NO. 154717 2009-06-19	BONIFACIO M. MEJILLANO v. ENRIQUE LUCILLO QUISUMBING, J.
Also, the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.[28] An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. In other words, he who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must play by the rules.[29] This, the petitioner failed to do when he did not submit his memorandum on appeal.
	GR No. 173637 2009-04-21	DANTE T. TAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioner's objection to the prosecution's stand that he gave an implied consent to the separate trial of Criminal Case No. 119830 is belied by the records of the case. No objection was interposed by his defense counsel when this matter was discussed during the initial hearing.[33] Petitioner's conformity thereto can be deduced from his non-objection at the preliminary hearing when the prosecution manifested that the evidence to be presented would be only for Criminal Cases No. 119831-119832. His failure to object to the prosecution's manifestation that the cases be tried separately is fatal to his case. The acts, mistakes and negligence of counsel bind his client, except only when such mistakes would result in serious injustice.[34] In fact, petitioner's acquiescence is evident from the transcript of stenographic notes during the initial presentation of the People's evidence in the five BW cases on 27 February 2001, herein quoted below:COURT: Atty. Sandejas, call your witness.
	GR No. 165471 2008-07-21	EMETERIO O. PASIONA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In a number of cases wherein the factual milieu confronted by the aggrieved party was much graver than the one being faced by herein petitioner, the Court struck down the argument that the aggrieved parties were denied due process of law because they had the opportunity to be heard at some point of the proceedings even if they had not been able to fully exhaust all the remedies available by reason of their counsel's negligence or mistake. Thus, in Dela Cruz v. Andres,[16] the Court held that "where a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the essence of due process."[17] In the earlier case of Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[18] the decision of the trial court attained finality by reason of counsel's failure to timely file a notice of appeal but the Court still ruled that such negligence did not deprive petitioner of due process of law. As elucidated by the Court in said case, to wit: "The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. x x x Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process."
	GR NO. 149200 2006-07-14	ABRAHAM ONG v. CIBA GEIGY CORONA, J.
The general rule is that the client is bound by the actuation of his counsel in the conduct of the case and cannot be heard to complain that the result of the litigation might have been different had his counsel proceeded differently. In criminal cases, as well as in civil cases, it has frequently been held that the fact that blunders and mistakes may have been made in the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of counsel does not constitute a ground for new trial.[9] The exception to this rule is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.[10]
	GR NO. 155737 2005-10-19	R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE HAWK TRANSPORT CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
In like manner, the case at bar is different from the Escudero case where there were "outright" deprivations of property without due process of law. In the case before us, petitioner, through counsel filed its Answer with Counterclaim and Answer to Cross-claim. Counsel also cross-examined the witnesses of the respondent. Likewise, petitioner was given several opportunities to present evidence in its defense.[13] The essence of due process is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence one may have in support of one's defense.[14] Here, we find no deprivation of due process.
	GR NO. 164736 2005-10-14	UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION v. BENITO CATAPANG CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is, therefore, evident from the foregoing that the present petition was filed way beyond the reglementary period. Hence, its outright dismissal would be proper. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[37] Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.[38]
	GR No. 159636 2004-11-25	VICTORY LINER v. ROSALITO GAMMAD YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Viewed vis-à-vis the foregoing jurisprudence, to sustain petitioner's argument 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.[33]
	GR No. 148189 2004-11-11	EMERITO REMULLA v. JOSELITO DP. MANLONGAT PANGANIBAN, J.
Generally, the right to appeal is not constitutional, natural or inherent;[9] it is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised only in accordance with the provisions of the law.[10] It has thus been held that the failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and within the period allowed by law[11] renders the questioned decision final and executory and precludes the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction to review it.[12]
	GR No. 136350 2004-10-25	SPS. IKE S. BARZA AND ZENAIDA A. BARZA v. SPS. RAFAEL S. DINGLASAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Settled is the rule that a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel.[21] The only exception is when the negligence of the counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court. In such instance, the remedy is to reopen the case and allow the party who was denied his day in court to adduce evidence.[22] Perusing the case at bar, we find no reason to depart from the general rule.
	GR No. 136350 2004-10-25	SPS. IKE S. BARZA AND ZENAIDA A. BARZA v. SPS. RAFAEL S. DINGLASAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners, as plaintiffs a quo, were given ample opportunity to present their case despite the several postponements asked by their counsel. Records show that the trial court allowed petitioners a total of twenty-eight postponements, in a span of seven years, from the time the case was filed on March 22, 1984 until its dismissal on April 17, 1991. They cannot claim, therefore, that they were deprived of their day in court. As we have repeatedly stated, due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.[23] So long as a party is given the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process.[24]
	GR No. 136350 2004-10-25	SPS. IKE S. BARZA AND ZENAIDA A. BARZA v. SPS. RAFAEL S. DINGLASAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As petitioners themselves pointed out, they were represented by a law firm. This meant that any of its members could lawfully act as their counsel during the trial. Petitioners, however, should not have expected that all they needed to do was sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case. To do so would enable every party to render inutile any adverse order or decision through the simple expedience of alleging gross negligence on the part of its counsel. [31]
	GR No. 152494 2004-09-22	MARIANO ONG v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Time and again it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.[11]
	GR No. 133805 2004-06-29	AGUSTINA SENO TAN v. PACITA GANLAG TAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
As earlier mentioned, petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision was denied for having been filed beyond the 15 day reglementary period. For her predicament, she blamed her former lawyer, Atty. Eutiquio A. Cajes. Petitioner should have known that "the client is bound by the acts of his counsel, even his mistakes and negligence."[6] We observe though that she is not entirely blameless for the denial of her motion for reconsideration. In Producers Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,[7] we held that "litigants, represented by counsel, should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case." Indeed, it is their duty as litigants to keep in constant touch with their counsel so as to be posted on the status of their case.[8]
	GR No. 136726 2003-09-24	PANFILO V. VILLARUEL v. REYNALDO D. FERNANDO CARPIO, J.
Due process, in essence, is simply an opportunity to be heard[19] and this opportunity was not denied petitioner. Throughout the proceedings in the trial court as well as in the Court of Appeals, petitioner had the opportunity to present his side but he failed to do so. Clearly, petitioner's former counsel, the OSG, was negligent. This negligence, however, binds petitioner. The trial and appellate courts correctly ruled that the negligence of the OSG could not relieve petitioner of the effects such negligence[20] and prevent the decision of the trial court from becoming final and executory.

PRODUCERS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA