Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO SAPAD v. VS. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 173390 2012-06-27	MELCHOR L. LAGUA v. CA SERENO, J.
Nothing is more settled than the rule that the negligence and mistakes of counsel are binding on the client.[12] Otherwise, there would never be an end to a suit, so long as counsel could allege its own fault or negligence to support the client's case and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by the operation of law.
	GR No. 161827 2009-04-21	SESINANDO POLINTAN v. PEOPLE CARPIO, J.
The negligence and mistakes of counsel are binding on the client.[17] The Court cannot tolerate Polintan's habitual failure to follow the Rules of Court and his flimsy excuses. First, Polintan failed to appear before the RTC during the presentation of evidence. He alleged that he was not duly notified of the hearing because he had moved from the address on record. However, when members of the Criminal Intelligence Division of Camp Crame apprehended him, he gave the same address. Second, Polintan failed to file his notice of appeal within the time prescribed. He alleged that his counsel was in Naga City. Third, Polintan failed to file his appellant's brief within the time prescribed. He alleged that his counsel was in Camarines Sur.
	GR No. 161070 2008-04-14	JOHN HILARIO Y SIBAL v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While as a general rule, negligence of counsel may not be condoned and should bind the client,[23] the exception is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.[24] In Aguilar v. Court of Appeals,[25] we held:x x x Losing liberty by default of an insensitive lawyer should be frowned upon despite the fiction that a client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. The established jurisprudence holds:
	GR NO. 158053 2007-06-21	EDWIN RAZON Y LUCEA v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Even if the Court were to admit that Atty. Gallardo was negligent, the rule is that negligence of counsel binds the client. The only exception is when the negligence of said counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.[30] No such excepting circumstance can be said to be present in this case because as properly observed by the appellate court, petitioner himself was guilty of negligence.[31]