Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BUILDING CARE CORPORATION v. MYRNA MACARAEG

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 206612 2015-08-17	TOYOTA ALABANG v. EDWIN GAMES SERENO, C.J.
The NLRC's reasoning that no appeal may be taken from an order of execution of a final and executory judgment is also rooted in case law. Jurisprudence dictates that a final and executory decision of the LA can no longer be reversed or modified.[20] After all, just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winning party have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case.[21] On this basis, theCA did not grievously err when it concluded that the ruling of the NLRC denying petitioner's appeal was not baseless, arbitrary, whimsical, or despotic.[22]
	GR No. 188364 2015-02-11	K & G MINING CORPORATION v. ACOJE MINING COMPANY REYES, J.
Second, in cases where the counsel's negligence consisted of his failure to timely file an appeal, any alleged deprivation of due process is negated by the fact that the client had the opportunity to be heard or was actually heard in the lower tribunal. This was the ruling in Building Care Corporation/Leopard Security & Investigation Agency v. Macaraeg[53] where the Court found no deprivation of due process because the client was able to fully present and argue her case before the Labor Arbiter (LA). She was accorded the opportunity to be heard and thus her failure to appeal the LA's decision cannot be deemed as a deprivation of her right to due process.[54]
	GR No. 179491 2015-01-14	ALEJANDRO C. ALMENDRAS v. ALEXIS C. ALMENDRAS SERENO, C.J.
Petitioner was given several opportunities to present his evidence or to clarify his medical constraints in court, but he did not do so, despite knowing full well that he had a pending case in court. For petitioner to feign and repeatedly insist upon a lack of awareness of the progress of an important litigation is to unmask a penchant for the ludicrous. Although he rightfully expected counsel to amply protect his interest, he cannot just sit back, relax and await the outcome of the case. In keeping with the normal course of events, he should have taken the initiative "of making the proper inquiries from his counsel and the trial court as to the status of his case." For his failure to do so, he has only himself to blame.[19] The Court cannot allow petitioner the exception to the general rule just because his counsel admitted having no knowledge of his medical condition. To do so will set a dangerous precedent of never-ending suits, so long as lawyers could allege their own fault or negligence to support the client's case and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by the operation of law.[20]
	GR No. 190486 2014-11-26	STANLEY FINE FURNITURE v. VICTOR T. GALLANO LEONEN, J.
The general rule is that errors of counsel bind the client. The reason behind this rule was discussed in Building Care Corporation v. Macaraeg:[83]
	GR No. 183239 2014-06-02	GREGORIO DE LEON v. HERCULES AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
In Building Care Corporation/Leopard Security & Investigation Agency v. Macaraeg,[28] We said: It should be emphasized that the resort to a liberal application, or suspension of the application of procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the well-settled principle that rules must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice. In Marohomsalic v. Cole, the Court stated:
	GR No. 199070 2014-04-07	PEOPLE v. VICENTE R. ESPINOSA CARPIO, J.
However, we should point out that courts are not given carte blanche authority to interpret rules liberally. In Building Care Corporation v. Macaraeg,[31] we pointed out that: x x x the resort to a liberal application, or suspension of the application of procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the well-settled principle that rules must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice.[32]
	GR No. 199070 2014-04-07	PEOPLE v. VICENTE R. ESPINOSA CARPIO, J.
x x x respondent nor her former counsel gave any explanation or reason citing extraordinary circumstances for her lawyer's failure to abide by the rules for filing an appeal. Respondent merely insisted that she had not been remiss in following up her case with said lawyer.[43]
	GR No. 191025 2013-07-31	RHODORA PRIETO v. ALPADI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Procedural rules should not be so easily brushed aside with the mere averment of the "higher interest of justice," as the Court discussed in Building Care Corp./Leopard Security & Investigation Agency v. Macaraeg[20]:It should be emphasized that the resort to a liberal application, or suspension of the application of procedural rules, must remain as the exception to the well-settled principle that rules must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice. In Marohomsalic v. Cole, the Court stated: