This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-01-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Atty. Ang, petitioners' counsel, claims that as soon as he received the decision, he sent copies to petitioners. Records show that at that time, while some of the petitioners were already abroad, Dominga and Tomasa were still living in Cavite. Cornelia who lives abroad was able to receive a copy of the decision and was able to make an overseas call to Atty. Ang to express her desire to appeal the decision. However, neither Dominga nor Tomasa who only live in Cavite, took steps to call Atty. Ang at the earliest possible time to protect their interest. No prudent party would leave the fate of his case completely to his lawyer.[38] It is the duty of the client to be in touch with his counsel so as to be constantly posted about the case.[39] Thus, we find that there was participatory negligence on the part of petitioners, which would not relieve them of the consequence of the negligence of their counsel. | |||||
|
2004-05-26 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.[11] Further, among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory. A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his services without reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.[12] Any dereliction of duty by a counsel, affects the client.[13] This means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.[14] | |||||
|
2004-01-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The essence of due process is a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence in support of one's defense. What the law proscribes, therefore, is the lack of opportunity to be heard.[34] As long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[35] It is beyond dispute that petitioner participated in the trial. He was able to adduce evidence in his behalf and given the opportunity to refute those of private respondents. Clearly, petitioner cannot complain that he was deprived of due process. | |||||