This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioner is bound by the negligence of its counsel. The declarations of the Court in Gotesco Properties, Inc. v. Moral[42] is applicable to petitioner: The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique. The basis is the tenet that an act performed by counsel within the scope of a "general or implied authority" is regarded as an act of the client. While the application of this general rule certainly depends upon the surrounding circumstances of a given case, there are exceptions recognized by this Court: "(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." | |||||
|
2014-12-10 |
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] | |||||