This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-04-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Here, petitioner has not shown any cogent reason for the Court to be liberal in the application of the rules. [8] Petitioner cannot evade its responsibility of complying with the rules by faulting the Court of Appeals of not stating in its first resolution the particular deficiencies of the petition. We note that despite having the chance to rectify its omission, petitioner still did not submit the necessary documents with its motion for reconsideration. | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| WHEREFORE, the motion is hereby DENIED. Petitioner presents himself as a mere farmer seeking the Court's leniency to the point of disregarding the rules on reglementary period for filing pleadings. But he fails to point out any circumstance which might lead the Court to conclude that his station in life had in any way placed his half-brother in a more advantageous position. As we see it, petitioner failed to show diligence in pursuing his cause. His condition as a farmer, by itself alone, does not excuse or exempt him from being vigilant on his right. He cannot lay the blame solely on his former lawyer. It is settled that clients are bound by the mistakes, negligence and omission of their counsel.[18] While, exceptionally, a client may be excused from the failure of his counsel, the circumstances obtaining in this case do not convince the Court to take exception. | |||||
|
2005-11-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is settled that the mistakes, negligence, and omissions of counsel are binding upon his client.[13] So should it be in the instant cases. | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Private respondents harp on the fact that the Court applied procedural rules liberally in favor of the petitioner which they consider an injustice. They, however, must realize that the Rules of Court itself calls for its liberal construction, with the view of promoting their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[5] The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard.[6] In numerous cases, the Court has allowed liberal construction of the Rules of Court with respect to the rules on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals, when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of equity jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.[7] As the Court has expounded in Aguam vs. Court of Appeals:[8] | |||||