You're currently signed in as:
User

EUGENIO TENEBRO v. CA

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2004-09-09
PANGANIBAN, J.
Petitioner was not deprived of its day in court.  Actually, it never even complained against the manner in which its counsel had handled the case,[53] until late in the day.  It must therefore "bear the consequences"[54] of its faulty choice of counsel whom it hired itself and whom it had "full authority to fire at any time and replace with another."[55] Moreover, in all the pertinent cases cited by petitioner, the denial of due process was attributable to the gross negligence of retained counsels, who had either been single practitioners or law firms; none had referred to counsels who, like Atty. Manalo, were employees of the aggrieved party.