Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DANTE SARRAGA v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 211703 2014-12-10	EDELBERT C. UYBOCO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
As to petitioner's claim that his right to due process was denied due to his former counsel's error, abuse of discretion or gross incompetence, We find no merit in this claim. Time and again, this Court has ruled that a client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence and mistake in handling a case,[13] and to allow a client to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel.[14] While this rule has recognized exceptions,[15] We find that there is no reason for this Court to deviate from the findings of the Sandiganbayan. We held in Gotesco Properties, Inc. v. Moral:[16]
	GR No. 179620 2008-08-26	MANUEL G. ALMELOR v. RTC OF LAS PIÑAS CITY REYES, R.T., J.
x x x The dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is frowned upon. While the right to appeal is a statutory, not a natural right, nonetheless it is an essential part of our judicial system and courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure that every party-litigant has the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[45] Indeed, it is far better and more prudent for a court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on the merits to attain the ends of justice.[46]
	GR No. 146611 2007-02-06	TANCREDO REDEÑA v. CA GARCIA, J.
Admittedly, this Court has relaxed the rule on the binding effect of counsel's negligence and allowed a litigant another chance to present his case (1) where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require.[19] None of these exceptions obtains here.
	GR NO. 153414 2006-06-27	VICTORIA G. CALLANGAN v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client admits of exceptions. The recognized exceptions are: (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.[4] In such cases, courts must step in and accord relief to a party-litigant.[5]
	GR No. 165767 2005-11-29	SPS. WILLIAM G. FRIEND AND MARIA RENEE FRIEND AND JOHN DOE v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, this rule admits certain exceptions, such as: (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.[10] Indeed, there have been instances when this court had accorded relief to the client who suffered by reason of their lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[11] The instant case does not fall under any of the exceptions.
	GR NO. 155737 2005-10-19	R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE HAWK TRANSPORT CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes of his counsel.[9] Exceptions to the foregoing have been recognized by the Court in the cases of Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[10] and Escudero v. Dulay,[11] such as when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when the application "results in the outright deprivation of one's property through a technicality."[12]
	GR NO. 150739 2005-08-18	SPS. BENIGNO QUE AND ERLINDA QUE v. CA CARPIO, J.
Admittedly, this Court has relaxed the rule on the binding effect of counsel's negligence and allowed a litigant another chance to present his case "(1) where [the] reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when [the rule's] application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require."[20]
	GR No. 158806 2004-12-16	PRUDENTIAL BANK v. BUSINESS ASSISTANCE GROUP DAVIDE JR., CJ.
Further, this Court has consistently frowned upon the dismissal of an appeal on purely technical grounds.[26] While the right to appeal is a statutory, not a natural right, it is, nonetheless, an essential part of our judicial system. Courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal, but rather, ensure amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of a cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[27]