Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PROSPERO BALGAMI v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 214865 2015-08-19	ROSVEE C. CELESTIAL v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
As aptly observed by the CA, petitioner's claim that she was not personally informed of the dismissal of the appeal deserves scant consideration. Fundamental is the rule that notice to counsel is notice to the client.[16] When a party is represented by a counsel in an action in court, notices of all kinds, including motions and pleadings of all parties and all orders of the court must be served on his counsel.[17]
	GR No. 182814 2015-07-15	LIGAYA MENDOZA v. CA PEREZ, J.
While petitioners impliedly admitted the fact that the security guard in the building where their counsel's office is located received the copy of the judgment, they argued, however, that such receipt is not valid under the law, a contention which pulled the rug from under their feet exposing the utter frailty of their position. In Balgami v. Court of Appeals,[19] the Court instructed the counsels to device a system to ensure that official communications would be promptly received by them, lest, they will be chargeable with negligence, thus:x x x. The law office is mandated to adopt and arrange matters in order to ensure that official or judicial communications sent by mail would reach the lawyer assigned to the case. The court has time and again emphasized that the negligence of the clerks, which adversely affect the cases handled by lawyers, is binding upon the latter. The doctrinal rule is that negligence of the counsel binds the client because, otherwise, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and [prove] that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, or experienced, or learned.
	GR No. 176830 2014-02-11	SATURNINO C. OCAMPO v. EPHREM S. ABANDO SERENO, C.J.
We have previously cautioned that "litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case."[106] Having opted to remain passive during the preliminary investigation, petitioner Ladlad and his counsel cannot now claim a denial of due process, since their failure to file a counter-affidavit was of their own doing.
	GR NO. 170102 2007-07-27	SPS. FRANCISCO AND GLORIA SALCEDO v. AMELIA MARINO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Nor will the bare fact that the petitioners now live in Manila, while their counsel has office in Olongapo, justifies their failure to file their memorandum on time. In Balgami v. Court of Appeals,[7] where a party resided 135 kilometers away from his counsel in Iloilo City, we held that such fact alone will not excuse the party from failing to get in touch with his counsel. Moreover, we agree with the RTC that petitioners' presence was not indispensable in the preparation of their memorandum. Also, there is no showing that they were earnestly following up their case with their counsel. It is a dogma that litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case.[8] A party to a case is mandated to inquire from his counsel from time to time about its status and progress. Petitioners were unmindful of this mandate.
	GR NO. 167492 2007-03-22	JAIME M. DE GUZMAN v. PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
Undoubtedly, this Court has invariably ruled that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost. [8]
	GR No. 141484 2005-11-11	GCP-MANNY TRANSPORT SERVICES v. ABRAHAM Y. PRINCIPE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court has also held that when petitioner is at fault or not entirely blameless, there is no reason to overturn well-settled jurisprudence or to interpret the rules liberally in its favor.[20] Where petitioner failed to act with prudence and diligence, its plea that it was not accorded the right to due process cannot elicit this Court's approval or even sympathy.[21] It is petitioner's duty, as a client, to be in touch with his counsel so as to be constantly posted about the case.[22] 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.[23] It is also its responsibility, together with its counsel, to devise a system for the receipt of mail intended for them.[24]