This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-02-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "It is settled rule that the mistake of a counsel binds the client."[48] The Court explained the rationale for the rule in the recent Lagua v. Court of Appeals,[49] thus: [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.[50] | |||||
|
2015-01-26 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion is the "arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or a capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or a refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law."[49] | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is, however, an oft-repeated ruling that the negligence and mistakes of counsel bind the client. A departure from this rule would bring about never-ending suits, so long as lawyers could allege their own fault or negligence to support the client's case and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by the operation of law.[15] The only exception would be, where the lawyer's gross negligence would result in the grave injustice of depriving his client of the due process of law.[16] In this case, there was no such deprivation of due process. Respondent was able to fully present and argue her case before the Labor Arbiter. She was accorded the opportunity to be heard. Her failure to appeal the Labor Arbiter's Decision cannot, therefore, be deemed as a deprivation of her right to due process. In Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano v. Benemerito,[17] the Court ruled, thus: The perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional and non-compliance with such legal requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. The limitation on the period of appeal is not without reason. They must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable to forestall or avoid unreasonable delays in the administration of justice, to ensure an orderly discharge of judicial business, and to put an end to controversies. x x x | |||||