This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2016-01-20 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| A client is bound by the negligence of his counsel. A counsel, once retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself. A recognized exception to the rule is when the reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law. For the exception to apply, however, the gross negligence should not be accompanied by the client's own negligence or malice, considering that the client has the duty to be vigilant in respect of his interests by keeping himself up-to-date on the status of the case. Failing in this duty, the client should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against him.[51] | |||||
|
2015-07-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Truly, a litigant bears the responsibility to monitor the status of his case, for no prudent party leaves the fate of his case entirely in the hands of his lawyer. It is the client's duty to be in contact with his lawyer from time to time in order to be informed of the progress and developments of his case; hence, to merely rely on the bare reassurance of his lawyer that everything is being taken care of is not enough.[27] Where the party failed to act with prudence and diligence, its plea that it was not accorded the right to due process cannot elicit this court's approval or even sympathy.[28] | |||||
|
2015-01-26 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client, even mistakes in the application of procedural rules.[56] The exception to the rule is "when the reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law."[57] | |||||
|
2015-01-26 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Thus, in Bejarasco, Jr. v. People,[58] this court reiterated: For the exception to apply . . . the gross negligence should not be accompanied by the client's own negligence or malice, considering that the client has the duty to be vigilant in respect of his interests by keeping himself up-to-date on the status of the case. Failing in this duty, the client should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against him.[59] | |||||
|
2014-11-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court is not persuaded by petitioner's contention that she should not be bound by her counsel's gross neglect of duty in not informing her of the adverse decision of the CA. The Court agrees with the observation of the CA that petitioner is nor entirely blameless as he was not vigilant in monitoring the progress of her case. Evidence of her negligence is the fact that she did not make any effort to personally follow up her appeal with her counsel. Instead, she merely relied on a certain Conrad Lucero, the person who referred her to her counsel, regarding updates of her appeal with the CA. In this respect, the Court's ruling in Bejarasco, Jr. v. People[13] is instructive, to wit: The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsel's acts, including even mistakes in the realm of procedural technique. The rationale for the rule is that a counsel, once retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself. A recognized exception to the rule is when the reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law. For the exception to apply, however, the gross negligence should not be accompanied by the client's own negligence or malice, considering that the client has the duty to be vigilant in respect of his interests by keeping up-to-date on the status of the case. Failing in this duty, the client should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against him. | |||||
|
2014-07-09 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Nothing is more settled than the rule that the negligence and mistakes of the counsel are binding on the client.[18] The rationale behind this rule is that a counsel, once retained, is said to have the authority, albeit impliedly, to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution of the case in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of his authority is treated by law as the act or omission of the client himself.[19] It is only in cases involving gross or palpable negligence of the counsel, or when the application of the general rule amounts to an outright deprivation of one's property or liberty through technicality, or where the interests of justice so require, when relief is accorded to a client who has suffered thereby.[20] | |||||
|
2012-08-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In his Comment,[13] Medida maintains that he has sufficiently proved that the subject properties have been declared alienable and disposable. To further support this assertion, he submitted with his Comment the following certifications issued by the DENR-Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of Argao, Cebu: (1) the Certification[14] dated June 22, 2011 which states that the parcel of land described as Lot No. 817, Cad/Pls 1049-D, C-1 located at Poblacion, Boljoon, Cebu with an area of 5,972 square meters is within the alienable and disposable area, Proj. No. 59-A, L.C. Map No. 3280, certified on August 6, 1987, as verified by actual ground verification; and (2) the Certification[15] dated July 5, 2011 which states that the parcel of land described as Lot No. 597, Cad/Pls 1049-D, C-1 located at Poblacion, Boljoon, Cebu with an area of 533 square meters is within the alienable and disposable area, Proj. No. 59 L.C. Map No. 2876, certified on January 11, 1980, as verified by actual ground verification. | |||||
|
2012-06-27 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| It is the client's duty to be in contact with his lawyer from time to time in order to be informed of the progress and developments of his case; hence, to merely rely on the bare reassurances of his lawyer that everything is being taken care of is not enough.[13] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2012-01-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but is merely a statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law. The right is unavoidably forfeited by the litigant who does not comply with the manner thus prescribed.[22] | |||||