Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INSULAR LIFE SAVINGS v. SPS. FELIX MATEO RUNES

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 165544 2009-10-02	ROMEO SAMONTE v. S.F. NAGUIAT PERALTA, J.
Petitioner's claim that Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court does not require that petitioner should state the reason why he did not avail of the remedy of appeal deserves scant consideration. His failure to avail of the remedy of appeal within the reglementary period despite receipt of the RTC decision rendered the same final and executory. He cannot be allowed to assail the RTC decision which had become final in a petition for relief from judgment when there was no allegations of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence which prevented him from interposing an appeal. Such appeal could have corrected what he believed to be an erroneous judicial decision. To reiterate, petition for relief is an equitable remedy that is allowed only in exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy[11] which is not present in petitioner's case. Thus, petitioner's resort to a petition for relief under Rule 38 was not proper and the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition for relief from judgment.
	GR No. 181969 2009-10-02	ROMLAGO v. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES NACHURA, J.
It is settled that clients are bound by the mistakes, negligence and omission of their counsel.[48] While, exceptionally, the client may be excused from the failure of counsel,[49] the circumstances obtaining in the present case do not persuade this Court to take exception.
	GR No. 174414 2008-03-14	ELMER F. GOMEZ v. MA. LITA A. MONTALBAN 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]
	GR No. 174219 2007-11-23	KLT FRUITS v. WSR FRUITS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In refusing to cater to KLT's arguments regarding the liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure, the appellate court underscored that KLT failed to show any justifiable, persuasive or weighty reasons to rationalize a relaxation of the rule. The appellate court noted that in KLT's Urgent Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 November 2003, KLT's counsel, Atty. Vicente Posadas, admitted that he committed an "honest, innocent oversight or omission" when he was unable to cause the payment of the appeal docket fees when he filed the notice of appeal. The oversight was allegedly due to the recent chronic illness plaguing counsel who was the only full-time lawyer in the law office which he shared with his brother. KLT's counsel even attached a duly notarized medical certificate to support his claim. He alleged that he failed to notice the non-payment of the docket fees when he filed their "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal," as he was already sick, resting at home; and that the said pleading was only filed through the assistance of an outside junior lawyer, who occasionally assisted him in times of indisposition. The Court of Appeals determined that by admitting his "oversight or omission," KLT's counsel effectively admitted to being grossly negligent. Negligence, to be deemed "excusable," must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against.[23] The omission herein could hardly be characterized as excusable. Despite his alleged illness or indisposition, the Court of Appeals explicitly declared that Atty. Posadas should have exercised greater prudence and diligence in ensuring that the appeal docket and other legal fees were paid as soon as he filed the notice of appeal.[24]
	GR No. 164333 2007-08-24	LYNX INDUSTRIES CONTRACTOR v. EUSTERIO T. TALA 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]
	GR Nos. 141104 & 148763 2007-06-08	ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, negligence, to be "excusable," must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against.[51] Revenue Regulations No. 3-88, which was issued on 15 February 1988, had been in effect more than two years prior to the filing by petitioner corporation of its earliest application for refund/credit of input VAT involved herein on 21 August 1990. CTA Circular No. 1-95 was issued only on 25 January 1995, after petitioner corporation had filed its Petitions before the CTA, but still during the pendency of the cases of petitioner corporation before the tax court. The counsel of petitioner corporation does not allege ignorance of the foregoing administrative regulation and tax court circular, only that he no longer deemed it necessary to present the documents required therein because of the presentation of alleged unrebutted evidence of the zero-rated sales of petitioner corporation. It was a judgment call made by the counsel as to which evidence to present in support of his client's cause, later proved to be unwise, but not necessarily negligent.
	GR NO. 161864 2007-04-27	SPS. ROLANDO DELA CRUZ AND TERESITA DELA CRUZ v. SPS. FELICIANO ANDRES AND ERLINDA AUSTRIA QUISUMBING, J.
A petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is an equitable remedy that is allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy.[7] It may be availed of only after a judgment, final order or other proceeding was taken against the petitioner in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.[8]
	GR NO. 168498 2006-06-16	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. CIR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Relief cannot be granted on the flimsy excuse that the failure to appeal was due to the neglect of petitioner's counsel.[21] Otherwise, all that a losing party would do to salvage his case would be to invoke neglect or mistake of his counsel as a ground for reversing or setting aside the adverse judgment, thereby putting no end to litigation.[22]