This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2016-02-03 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Considering that the RTC's order of reimbursement is specifically addressed to SRMO and the established fact that SRMO only received the subject money in its capacity as counsel/agent of Gerardo, there is then more reason to apply the exception here. Unlike Tang, which involved neighboring lot owners as petitioners, SRMO's interest can hardly be considered as merely incidental. That SRMO is being required to reimburse from its own coffers money already transmitted to its client is sufficient to give SRMO direct interest to challenge the RTC's order. Neither can SRMO be considered a total stranger to the proceedings. We have stated in one case that "a counsel becomes the eyes and ears in the prosecution or defense of his or her client's case."[39] This highly fiduciary relationship between counsel and client makes the party/non-party delineation prescribed by Tang inadequate in resolving the present controversy. | |||||