This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that a client has an undoubted right to settle her litigation without the intervention of the attorney, for the former is generally conceded to have exclusive control over the subject matter of the litigation and may at anytime, if acting in good faith, settle and adjust the cause of action out of court before judgment, even without the attorney's intervention.[32] | |||||
|
2014-06-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The nature of the obligation of the co-conspirators in the commission of the crime requires solidarity, and each debtor may be compelled to pay the entire obligation.[21] As a co-conspirator, then, Inovero's civil liability was similar to that of a joint tortfeasor under the rules of the civil law. Joint tortfeasors are those who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit.[22] They are also referred to as those who act together in committing wrong or whose acts, if independent of each other, unite in causing a single injury.[23] Under Article 2194 of the Civil Code, joint tortfeasors are solidarily liable for the resulting damage. In other words, joint tortfeasors are each liable as principals, to the same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act themselves. As regards the extent of their respective liabilities, the Court expressed in Far Eastern Shipping Company v. Court of Appeals:[24] | |||||
|
2014-02-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It is settled that parties may enter into a compromise agreement without the intervention of their lawyer.[28] This precedes from the equally settled rule that a client has an undoubted right to settle a suit without the intervention of his lawyer for he is generally conceded to have the exclusive control over the subject-matter of the litigation and may, at any time before judgment, if acting in good faith, compromise, settle, and adjust his cause of action out of court without his attorney's intervention, knowledge, or consent, even though he has agreed with his attorney not to do so. Hence, the absence of a counsel's knowledge or consent does not invalidate a compromise agreement.[29] | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We recently upheld the right of counsel to intervene in proceedings for the recording of their charging lien. In Malvar v. KFPI,[34] we granted counsel's motion to intervene in the case after petitioner therein terminated his services without justifiable cause. Furthermore, after finding that petitioner and respondent had colluded in order to deprive counsel of his fees, we ordered the parties to jointly and severally pay counsel the stipulated contingent fees. | |||||