This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-07-09 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Nothing is more settled than the rule that the negligence and mistakes of the counsel are binding on the client.[18] The rationale behind this rule is that a counsel, once retained, is said to have the authority, albeit impliedly, to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution of the case in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of his authority is treated by law as the act or omission of the client himself.[19] It is only in cases involving gross or palpable negligence of the counsel, or when the application of the general rule amounts to an outright deprivation of one's property or liberty through technicality, or where the interests of justice so require, when relief is accorded to a client who has suffered thereby.[20] | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| And, lastly, the Republic cites the following portions of the joint Pre-Trial Brief of Cojuangco, et al.,[111] to wit: IV. | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Obviously, too, the statements found under the heading of Proposed Evidence in the joint Pre-Trial Brief were incomplete and inadequate on the important details of the supposed transactions (i.e., alleged borrowings and advances). As such, they could not constitute admissions that the funds had come from borrowings by Cojuangco, et al. from the UCPB or had been credit advances from the CIIF Oil Companies. Moreover, the purpose for presenting the records of the UCPB and the representatives of the UCPB and of the still unidentified or unnamed CIIF Oil Mills as declared in the joint Pre-Trial Brief did not at all show whether the UCPB and/or the unidentified or unnamed CIIF Oil Mills were the only sources of funding, or that such institutions, assuming them to be the sources of the funding, had been the only sources of funding. Such ambiguousness disqualified the statements from being relied upon as admissions. It is fundamental that any statement, to be considered as an admission for purposes of judicial proceedings, should be definite, certain and unequivocal;[113] otherwise, the disputed fact will not get settled. | |||||
|
2009-07-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the performance by the lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to his client.[23] Tersely put, it means an effective, efficient and truly decisive legal assistance, not a simply perfunctory representation.[24] | |||||
|
2008-12-08 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It is a basic rule of remedial law that a motion for extension of time to file a pleading must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended.[12] The court's discretion to grant a motion for extension is conditioned upon such motion's timeliness, the passing of which renders the court powerless to entertain or grant it.[13] Since the motion for extension was filed after the lapse of the prescribed period, there was no more period to extend. | |||||