Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GCP-MANNY TRANSPORT SERVICES v. ABRAHAM Y. PRINCIPE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 182814 2015-07-15	LIGAYA MENDOZA v. CA PEREZ, J.
Neither can petitioners exempt themselves or their properties from the operation of a final and executory judgment by harping on their counsel's negligence. Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that clients are bound by the actions of their counsel in the conduct of their case. If it were otherwise, and a lawyer's mistake or negligence was admitted as a reason for the opening of the case, there would be no end to litigation so long as counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned.[20] The only exception to the general rule is when the counsel's actuations are gross or palpable, resulting in serious injustice to client, that courts should accord relief to the party.[21] Indeed, if the error or negligence of the counsel did not result in the deprivation of due process to the client, nullification of the decision grounded on grave abuse of discretion is not warranted.[22] The instant case does not fall within the exception since petitioners were duly given their day in court.
	GR No. 206555 2014-09-17	ATTY. FORTUNATO PAGDANGANAN v. FLORENTINO P. SARMIENTO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In the present case, and as correctly pointed out by petitioners, the 60-day reglementary period for the purpose of filing a petition for certiorari should be reckoned from January 12, 2011, the date Atty. Borromeo, Sarmiento's then counsel of record, had the notice of the December 30, 2010 Resolution, and not February 10, 2011, the date when Sarmiento was personally notified thereof. This is in consonance with the well-settled rule that if a litigant is represented by counsel, notices of all kinds, including court orders and decisions, must be served on said counsel, and notice to him is considered notice to his client. As declared in the case of GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Hon. Principe:[50]
	GR No. 178984 2009-08-19	ERLINDA MAPAGAY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The rule is that when a party is represented by counsel, notices of all kinds, including motions, pleadings and orders, must be served on the counsel. Notice to counsel of record is binding on the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment, valid and regular on its face.[39]
	GR No. 175334 2008-03-26	SPS. DOMINGO M. BELEN v. PABLO R. CHAVEZ TINGA, J,
As a general rule, when a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon said attorney and notice to the client and to any other lawyer, not the counsel of record, is not notice in law. The exception to this rule is when service upon the party himself has been ordered by the court.[15] In cases where service was made on the counsel of record at his given address, notice sent to petitioner itself is not even necessary.[16]
	GR Nos. 172760-61 2007-10-15	KAREN AND KRISTY FISHING INDUSTRY AND SPS. HELIODORO TUVILLA AND AQUILINA TUVILLA v. CA TINGA, J,
Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that clients are bound by the actions of their counsel in the conduct of their case. If it were otherwise, and a lawyer's mistake or negligence were admitted as a reason for the opening of a case, there would be no end to litigation so long as counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned.[17]
	GR NO. 168988 2007-06-19	FERNANDO G. MANAYA v. ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB INCORPORATED CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Even more, it is respondent's duty as a client to be in touch with his counsel so as to be constantly posted about the case. It is mandated to inquire from its counsel about the status and progress of the case from time to time and cannot expect that all it has to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of the case.[26]
	GR NOS. 141810 & 141812 2007-02-02	VICENTE DELOS SANTOS v. FRED ELIZALDE VELASCO, JR., J.
In GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Principe, the Court ruled that unless the change of attorneys is carried out properly, the counsel of record shall still be considered as the party's counsel, and the notice sent to such counsel shall be considered as notice to the party represented.[32]
	GR NO. 147832 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. DANILO P. GABRIEL SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, "All criminal actions, either commenced by complaint or by information, shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor." The rule is that when a party is represented by counsel in an action in court, notices of all kinds, including motions, pleadings, and orders must be served on said counsel and notice to him is notice to the client.[5] The RTC sent a copy of its Order dated November 9, 2000 to the Olongapo City Prosecutor who received it on November 22, 2000. Perforce, it follows that the running of the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari must commence from that date, not from January 3, 2001, as claimed by the Solicitor General.