Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROBERTO G. ALARCON v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 170606 2007-11-23	LCK INDUSTRIES INC. v. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The parties themselves or their representative with written authority from them are required to attend in order to arrive at a possible amicable settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts and documents. All of the matters taken up during the pre-trial, including the stipulation of facts and the admissions made by the parties, are required to be recorded in a pre-trial order.[41]
	GR NO. 167727 2007-07-30	CRAYONS PROCESSING v. FELIPE PULA TINGA, J.
Before this Court, Crayons is all too willing to stress the neglect in the handling of the case by the former counsel of [Crayons] who represented it before the Labor Arbiter. Yet the general rule is that the client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel, save when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.[23] Espinosa v. Court of Appeals[24] explicates the requisite character of counsel's negligence that would be sufficient to excuse the client from the consequences thereof.
	GR NO. 166849 2006-09-05	ROLANDO JUANI v. ROBERTO G. ALARCON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Whether or not Tomas Alarcon had complete control of his mental faculties when he executed the said deed of sale on March 27, 1985 in favor of defendant Bienvenido Juani. With the statement of the foregoing issues, the pre-trial is now deemed closed and terminated. The parties are hereby given fifteen (15) days from receipt of the pre-trial order within which to have it set aside or modified to prevent manifest injustice x x x. On 8 August 1990, complainant filed the first motion for the execution of the Partial Decision that has become final and executory for failure of the defendants to interpose an appeal. At the same time, for the purpose of putting an end to the case, counsel for the complainant moved to dismiss his client's action for damages against the defendants who are also willing to withdraw their claims against his client. Upon the opposition of defendant Baluyot, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The motion of the complainant for the execution of the Partial Decision rendered on 1 August 1986, was, however, granted by the Order of the said court dated 19 August 1991.[14]
	GR NO. 166849 2006-09-05	ROLANDO JUANI v. ROBERTO G. ALARCON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
IPINAG-UUTOS. Thus, Roberto Alarcon, the complainant before the court a quo, appealed this Court of Appeals' decision through a Petition for Review on Certiorari[17] before this Court docketed as G.R. No. 126802, Roberto G. Alarcon v. The Court of Appeals and Bienvenido Juani, claiming that the appellate court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction in setting aside the partial decision. He stressed that the respondent court should have not taken cognizance of the case in the first place considering that the period to institute the action for annulment of judgment had long prescribed.
	GR No. 128686 2004-05-28	HONORATO ESPINOSA v. CA TINGA, J,
Espinosa claims that he was deprived of due process and blames his former counsel, Atty. Castillon, for having consented to the relocation survey, implicitly suggesting that the lawyer too had an active hand in denying him due process. Indubitably, Espinosa and his former counsel agreed to the relocation survey, were present during the survey and are thus estopped from questioning its very conduct in the first place. When a party retains the services of a lawyer, he is bound by his counsel's decisions regarding the conduct of the case. The general rule is that the client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel, save when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.[25]
	GR No. 137857 2000-09-11	REPUBLIC v. HEIRS OF SANCHO MAGDATO PANGANIBAN, J.
Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Court, provides that the annulment of a judgment may "be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction."[8] There is extrinsic fraud when "the unsuccessful party had been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, x x x or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; x x x."[9]