This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-06-09 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Petitioners cannot argue that the period to appeal should be counted from August 11, 2011, the day petitioners personally received a copy of the trial court's decision. Notice of judgment on the counsel of record is notice to the client.[35] Since petitioners' counsel received a copy of the decision on January 29, 2010, the period to appeal shall be counted from that date. | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that the mistake of a counsel binds the client, and it is only in instances wherein the negligence is so gross or palpable that courts must step in to grant relief to the aggrieved client.[20] In this case, Milla was able to file a Demurrer to Evidence, and upon the trial court's denial thereof, was allowed to present evidence.[21] Because of his failure to do so, RTC Br. 146 was justified in considering that he had waived his right thereto. Nevertheless, the trial court still allowed him to submit a memorandum in the interest of justice. Further, contrary to his assertion that RTC Br. 146 denied the Motion to Recall Warrant of Arrest thereafter filed by his former counsel, a reading of the 2 August 2007 Order of RTC Br. 146 reveals that it partially denied the Omnibus Motion for New Trial and Recall of Warrant of Arrest, but granted the Motion for Leave of Court to Avail of Remedies under the Rules of Court, allowing him to file an appeal and lifting his warrant of arrest.[22] | |||||
|
2010-08-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Granting that their counsel made a mistake in entering into such stipulations, such procedural error unfortunately bound them. The Court has consistently held that the mistake or negligence of a counsel in the area of procedural technique binds the client unless such mistake or negligence of counsel is so gross or palpable that would require the courts to step in and accord relief to the client who suffered thereby. Without this doctrinal rule, there would never be an end to a suit 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.[13] | |||||