Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BASILIO RIVERA v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 141104 & 148763 2007-06-08	ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING v. CIR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As elucidated by this Court in another case,[50] the general rule is that the client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of his case and he cannot therefore complain that the result of the litigation might have been otherwise had his counsel proceeded differently. It has been held time and again that blunders and mistakes made in the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of counsel do not qualify as a ground for new trial. If such were to be admitted as valid reasons for re-opening cases, there would never be an end to litigation so long as a new counsel could be employed to allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced or learned.
	GR NO. 155041 2007-02-14	REYNALDO DE CASTRO v. MANUEL B. FERNANDEZ CARPIO, J.
On the other hand, if the petition is to be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45, the petition would fail because only judgments or final orders that completely dispose of the case can be the subject of a petition for review.[14] In this case, the assailed Orders are only interlocutory orders. Petitioner should have proceeded with the trial of the case and if the trial court renders an unfavorable verdict, petitioner should assail the Orders as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment to be rendered in this case.[15]
	GR NO. 167245 2006-09-27	ELPIDIO S. UY v. FIRST METRO INTEGRATED STEEL CORP. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Blunders and mistakes in the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of counsel do not qualify as a ground for new trial. If such were to be admitted as valid reasons for re-opening cases, there would never be an end to litigation so long as a new counsel could be employed to allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced or learned. This will put a premium on the willful and intentional commission of errors by counsel, with a view to securing new trials in the event of conviction,[33] or an adverse decision, as in the instant case.
	GR NO. 141393 2006-04-19	CATHERINE A. YEE v. ESTRELLITA P. BERNABE AZCUNA, J.
The remedy taken by petitioner, that is, an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, brings up for review errors committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction amounting to nothing more than errors of judgment.[11] Specifically, this mode of appeal involves the review of judgments, awards or final orders on the merits where only questions of law are raised.[12] It must be stressed, however, that only judgments or final orders that completely dispose of the case or a particular matter can be the subject of such review.[13] Hence, appeal is not allowed against interlocutory orders which are merely provisional and decide some point or matter but are not a final decision of the whole controversy.[14] The rationale for this rule was stated in Rudecon Management Corporation v. Singson,[15] which quoted Sitchon v. Sheriff of Occidental Negros,[16] to wit:The reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment, and not from interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency of the appeal. If such appeal were allowed, the trial on the merits of the case should necessarily be delayed for a considerable length of time, and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses; for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental questions may be raised by him and interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court.
	GR NO. 149449 2006-02-20	DANIEL C. VALENZUELA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
[15] G.R. No. 141863, June 26, 2003, 405 SCRA 61.
	AC. NO. 6973 2006-02-13	ROBERT FRANCIS F. MARONILLA v. ATTYS. EFREN N. JORDA TINGA, J.
Without any express provision of the law, an appeal cannot be undertaken as the same is not one of the rights of the litigants. Appeal is more of a privilege given to a party by the laws or procedures. It is not a natural right or a part of due process.[22]