This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The rules of procedure serve a noble purpose of orderly and speedy administration of justice. Suib's attempt to persuade this Court to liberally interpret the technical rules must fail. This Court shall not depart from rules of procedure only in the guise of liberal construction, which would render such noble purpose nugatory.[29] | |||||
|
2011-02-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Rules 44 and 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure are designed for the proper and prompt disposition of cases before the Court of Appeals.[35] Rules of procedure exist for a noble purpose, and to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal construction would be to defeat such purpose.[36] The Court of Appeals noted in its Resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration that despite ample opportunity, petitioners never attempted to file an amended appellants' brief correcting the deficiencies of their brief, but obstinately clung to their argument that their Appellants' Brief substantially complied with the rules. Such obstinacy is incongruous with their plea for liberality in construing the rules on appeal.[37] | |||||
|
2010-09-20 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner cannot simply harp on the mistakes and negligence of his lawyer allegedly beset with personal problems and emotional depression. The negligence and mistakes of counsel are binding on the client.[18] There are exceptions to this rule, such as when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when the application of the general rule results in the outright deprivation of one's property or liberty through a technicality. However, in this case, we find no reason to exempt petitioner from the general rule.[19] The admitted inability of his counsel to attend fully and ably to the prosecution of his appeal and other sorts of excuses should have prompted petitioner to be more vigilant in protecting his rights and replace said counsel with a more competent lawyer. Instead, petitioner continued to allow his counsel to represent him on appeal and even up to this Court, apparently in the hope of moving this Court with a fervent plea for relaxation of the rules for reason of petitioner's age and medical condition. Verily, diligence is required not only from lawyers but also from their clients.[20] | |||||