Lawyerly

GR No. 211703

2014-12-10

VELASCO JR., J.

As to petitioner's claim that his right to due process was denied due to his former counsel's error, abuse of discretion or gross incompetence, We find no merit in this claim. Time and again, this Court has ruled that a client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence and mistake in handling a case,[13] and to allow a client to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel.[14] While this rule has recognized exceptions,[15] We find that there is no reason for this Court to deviate from the findings of the Sandiganbayan. We held in Gotesco Properties, Inc. v. Moral:[16]

GR No. 156296

2012-11-12

DENNIS Q. MORTEL v. SALVADOR E. KERR

BERSAMIN, J.

As a rule, a client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence and mistake in handling a case.[26] To allow a client to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel.[27]

GR No. 172458

2011-12-14

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CIR

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

While PNB may believe that it has a meritorious legal defense, this must be weighed against the need to halt an abuse of the flexibility of procedural rules. It is well established that faithful compliance with the Rules of Court is essential for the prevention and avoidance of unnecessary delays and for the organized and efficient dispatch of judicial business.[47]

GR No. 165544

2009-10-02

ROMEO SAMONTE v. S.F. NAGUIAT

PERALTA, J.

In Saint Louis University v. Cordero,[16] the Court said: Thus, while regretful that the petitioners may have had meritorious defenses against the trial court's 17 December 1998 Order, we must likewise weigh such defenses against the need to halt an abuse of the flexibility of procedural rules. Additionally, it should be pointed out that in petitions for relief from judgment, orders, or other proceedings; relief from denial of appeals; or annulment of judgments, final orders and resolutions, where meritorious defenses must be adduced, they must accompany the grounds cited therein, whether it is fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Where, as here, there is neither excusable nor gross negligence amounting to a denial of due process, meritorious defenses cannot alone be considered.

GR No. 172585

2008-06-26

CRISTITA BUSTON-ARENDAIN v. ANTONIA GIL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The spouses Bautista and Cristita via a Petition for Certiorari [8] filed with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 44118, assailed the issuance by the RTC of the order of default against them. However, in a Decision dated 30 September 1997,[9] the appellate court dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 44118 and affirmed the order of default of the RTC. [10] The spouses Bautista and Cristita[11] then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 131877, challenging the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of their Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 44118. In a Resolution of this Court dated 18 March 1998,[12] G.R. No. 131877 was dismissed since the said appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period[13] and the petition failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in rendering the questioned judgment.[14]

GR No. 172585

2008-06-26

CRISTITA BUSTON-ARENDAIN v. ANTONIA GIL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The spouses Bautista and Cristita via a Petition for Certiorari [8] filed with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 44118, assailed the issuance by the RTC of the order of default against them. However, in a Decision dated 30 September 1997,[9] the appellate court dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 44118 and affirmed the order of default of the RTC. [10] The spouses Bautista and Cristita[11] then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 131877, challenging the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of their Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 44118. In a Resolution of this Court dated 18 March 1998,[12] G.R. No. 131877 was dismissed since the said appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period[13] and the petition failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in rendering the questioned judgment.[14]

GR No. 174219

2007-11-23

KLT FRUITS v. WSR FRUITS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As to the existence of a meritorious defense which warrants a further hearing of the case, KLT insist that the checks in question were forged[34] or stolen from the vault of KLT by Leopoldo Gonzales, and that Gonzales admitted that he was the author of the forgery and theft. The forgery and theft of the checks in question will prevent WSR from recovering from KLT the value of the said checks. It bears stressing, though, that the RTC did not give due credence to the claim of forgery by KLT that would insulate it from liability for the amount of the checks. All told, the instant case underwent a full-blown trial, in which both parties presented evidence including rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence. Where a party was given the opportunity to defend its interest in due course, it cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process.[35] It must be emphasized that KLT was adequately heard, and that all issues were ventilated before the Decision was promulgated. All the necessary pleadings were filed by KLT's counsel to protect its interests when the case was still before the RTC. KLT was not deprived of its day in court.[36] No denial of due process was shown. Verily, KLT was afforded adequate and full opportunity to ventilate its case in the proceedings below.

GR NO. 161864

2007-04-27

SPS. ROLANDO DELA CRUZ AND TERESITA DELA CRUZ v. SPS. FELICIANO ANDRES AND ERLINDA AUSTRIA

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.

GR NO. 143664

2006-06-30

MARISON C. BASUEL v. FACT-FINDING

AZCUNA, J.

The general rule is that the mistake and negligence of counsel are binding on the client.[17] This is based on the principle that any act performed by the lawyer within the scope of the express or implied authority is regarded as an act of the client.[18] Otherwise, there would be no end to a suit so long as a new counsel could be employed who would allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned.[19]

GR No. 165767

2005-11-29

SPS. WILLIAM G. FRIEND AND MARIA RENEE FRIEND AND JOHN DOE v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The doctrinal rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client.[8] Otherwise, there would be no end to a suit so long as a new counsel could be employed who would allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned.[9]

GR NO. 143195

2005-09-13

ANDREA CAMPOSAGRADO v. PABLO S. CAMPOSAGRADO

The general rule is that payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.[13] This is pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Court which provides that:Sec. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with the original record or the record on appeal.

GR No. 151963

2004-09-09

AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS.

PANGANIBAN, J.

Axiomatic is the rule that "negligence of counsel binds the client."[8] The basis is the tenet that an act performed by counsel within the scope of a "general or implied authority"[9] is regarded as an act of the client.[10] "Consequently, the mistake or negligence of counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against the client."[11]

	GR No. 211703 2014-12-10	EDELBERT C. UYBOCO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
As to petitioner's claim that his right to due process was denied due to his former counsel's error, abuse of discretion or gross incompetence, We find no merit in this claim. Time and again, this Court has ruled that a client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence and mistake in handling a case,[13] and to allow a client to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel.[14] While this rule has recognized exceptions,[15] We find that there is no reason for this Court to deviate from the findings of the Sandiganbayan. We held in Gotesco Properties, Inc. v. Moral:[16]
	GR No. 156296 2012-11-12	DENNIS Q. MORTEL v. SALVADOR E. KERR BERSAMIN, J.
As a rule, a client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence and mistake in handling a case.[26] To allow a client to disown his counsel's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel.[27]
	GR No. 172458 2011-12-14	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. CIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
While PNB may believe that it has a meritorious legal defense, this must be weighed against the need to halt an abuse of the flexibility of procedural rules. It is well established that faithful compliance with the Rules of Court is essential for the prevention and avoidance of unnecessary delays and for the organized and efficient dispatch of judicial business.[47]
	GR No. 165544 2009-10-02	ROMEO SAMONTE v. S.F. NAGUIAT PERALTA, J.
In Saint Louis University v. Cordero,[16] the Court said: Thus, while regretful that the petitioners may have had meritorious defenses against the trial court's 17 December 1998 Order, we must likewise weigh such defenses against the need to halt an abuse of the flexibility of procedural rules. Additionally, it should be pointed out that in petitions for relief from judgment, orders, or other proceedings; relief from denial of appeals; or annulment of judgments, final orders and resolutions, where meritorious defenses must be adduced, they must accompany the grounds cited therein, whether it is fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Where, as here, there is neither excusable nor gross negligence amounting to a denial of due process, meritorious defenses cannot alone be considered.
	GR No. 172585 2008-06-26	CRISTITA BUSTON-ARENDAIN v. ANTONIA GIL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The spouses Bautista and Cristita via a Petition for Certiorari [8] filed with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 44118, assailed the issuance by the RTC of the order of default against them. However, in a Decision dated 30 September 1997,[9] the appellate court dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 44118 and affirmed the order of default of the RTC. [10] The spouses Bautista and Cristita[11] then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 131877, challenging the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of their Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 44118. In a Resolution of this Court dated 18 March 1998,[12] G.R. No. 131877 was dismissed since the said appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period[13] and the petition failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in rendering the questioned judgment.[14]
	GR No. 172585 2008-06-26	CRISTITA BUSTON-ARENDAIN v. ANTONIA GIL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The spouses Bautista and Cristita via a Petition for Certiorari [8] filed with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 44118, assailed the issuance by the RTC of the order of default against them. However, in a Decision dated 30 September 1997,[9] the appellate court dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 44118 and affirmed the order of default of the RTC. [10] The spouses Bautista and Cristita[11] then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 131877, challenging the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of their Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 44118. In a Resolution of this Court dated 18 March 1998,[12] G.R. No. 131877 was dismissed since the said appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period[13] and the petition failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in rendering the questioned judgment.[14]
	GR No. 174219 2007-11-23	KLT FRUITS v. WSR FRUITS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the existence of a meritorious defense which warrants a further hearing of the case, KLT insist that the checks in question were forged[34] or stolen from the vault of KLT by Leopoldo Gonzales, and that Gonzales admitted that he was the author of the forgery and theft. The forgery and theft of the checks in question will prevent WSR from recovering from KLT the value of the said checks. It bears stressing, though, that the RTC did not give due credence to the claim of forgery by KLT that would insulate it from liability for the amount of the checks. All told, the instant case underwent a full-blown trial, in which both parties presented evidence including rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence. Where a party was given the opportunity to defend its interest in due course, it cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process.[35] It must be emphasized that KLT was adequately heard, and that all issues were ventilated before the Decision was promulgated. All the necessary pleadings were filed by KLT's counsel to protect its interests when the case was still before the RTC. KLT was not deprived of its day in court.[36] No denial of due process was shown. Verily, KLT was afforded adequate and full opportunity to ventilate its case in the proceedings below.
	GR NO. 161864 2007-04-27	SPS. ROLANDO DELA CRUZ AND TERESITA DELA CRUZ v. SPS. FELICIANO ANDRES AND ERLINDA AUSTRIA 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.
	GR NO. 143664 2006-06-30	MARISON C. BASUEL v. FACT-FINDING AZCUNA, J.
The general rule is that the mistake and negligence of counsel are binding on the client.[17] This is based on the principle that any act performed by the lawyer within the scope of the express or implied authority is regarded as an act of the client.[18] Otherwise, there would be no end to a suit so long as a new counsel could be employed who would allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned.[19]
	GR No. 165767 2005-11-29	SPS. WILLIAM G. FRIEND AND MARIA RENEE FRIEND AND JOHN DOE v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The doctrinal rule is that the negligence of counsel binds the client.[8] Otherwise, there would be no end to a suit so long as a new counsel could be employed who would allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced, or learned.[9]
	GR NO. 143195 2005-09-13	ANDREA CAMPOSAGRADO v. PABLO S. CAMPOSAGRADO
The general rule is that payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal.[13] This is pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Court which provides that:Sec. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with the original record or the record on appeal.
	GR No. 151963 2004-09-09	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS. PANGANIBAN, J.
Axiomatic is the rule that "negligence of counsel binds the client."[8] The basis is the tenet that an act performed by counsel within the scope of a "general or implied authority"[9] is regarded as an act of the client.[10] "Consequently, the mistake or negligence of counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against the client."[11]

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY v. WINSTON JOSEPH Z. CORDERO AND SPS. LUCIO CORDERO