This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-02-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| ...[A]s a general rule, the negligence or mistake of a counsel binds the client for otherwise there would be never be no end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that the former counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned. But if under the circumstances of the case, the rule deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes a great hindrance and chief enemy, its rigors must be relaxed to admit exceptions thereto and prevent miscarriage of justice. In other words, the court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice require it. Moreover, the filing of an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for correcting the actions of a judge perceived to have gone beyond the norms of propriety, where a sufficient remedy exists.[32] The actions against judges should not be considered as complementary or suppletory to, or substitute for, the judicial remedies which can be availed of by a party in a case.[33] | |||||