This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-06-23 |
|||||
| For a claim of counsel's negligence to prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the client's cause must be shown.[51] In this case, the only pleading filed by petitioner's former counsel was a motion to dismiss. After the same had been denied, he did not file anything more until a decision was rendered by the trial court. This is compounded by the fact that he misrepresented to petitioner that he had filed the proper motion to set aside the order of default. These acts of petitioner's counsel amount to gross negligence. | |||||
|
2009-03-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We find no reason to exempt respondents from the general rule. The cause of the delay in the filing of the appeal memorandum, as explained by respondents' counsel, was not due to gross negligence. It could have been prevented by respondents' counsel if he only acted with ordinary diligence and prudence in handling the case. For a claim of gross negligence of counsel to prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the client's cause must be shown.[15] In one case, the Court ruled that failure to file appellant's brief can qualify as simple negligence but it does not amount to gross neglience to justify the annulment of the proceedings below.[16] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Negligence to be excusable must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against.[34] Under Section 1, the "negligence" must be excusable and generally imputable to the party because if it is imputable to the counsel, it is binding on the client.[35] To follow a contrary rule and allow a party to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel. What the aggrieved litigant should do is seek administrative sanctions against the erring counsel and not ask for the reversal of the court's ruling.[36] | |||||
|
2007-08-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, under Section 1, Rule 38,[14] the negligence must be excusable and generally imputable to the party because if it is imputable to the counsel, it is binding on the client.[15] It is settled that a party is bound by the mistakes, negligence and omission of his counsel.[16] To follow a contrary rule and allow a party to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel. What the aggrieved litigant should do is seek administrative sanctions against the erring counsel and not ask for the reversal of the court's ruling.[17] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under Section 1, Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court, the "negligence" must be excusable and generally imputable to the party because if it is imputable to the counsel, it is binding on the client. To follow a contrary rule and allow a party to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to re-opening by the mere subterfuge of replacing the counsel. What the aggrieved litigant should do is seek administrative sanctions against the erring counsel and not ask for the reversal of the court's ruling.[49] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For a claim of counsel's gross negligence to prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the client's cause must be shown.[12] The negligence of counsel must be so gross that the client is deprived of his day in court, the result of which is that he is deprived of his property without due process of law. Thus, where a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process.[13] Here, the case underwent a full-blown trial. Both parties were adequately heard, and all issues were ventilated before the decision was promulgated. | |||||