This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-06-23 |
|||||
| One of the grounds for the granting of a new trial under Section 1 of Rule 37 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is excusable negligence.[45] It is settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. This is based on the rule that any act performed by a counsel within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded as an act of his client.[46] Consequently, the mistake or negligence of counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against the client.[47] We have, however, carved out exceptions to this rule; as where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; or where the application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property; or where the interests of justice so requires and relief ought to be accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the lawyer's gross or palpable mistake or negligence.[48] In order to apply the exceptions rather than the rule, the circumstances obtaining in each case must be looked into. In cases where one of the exceptions is present, the courts must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby.[49] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' contention has no leg to stand on. It is undisputed that respondent company was not a party to the case decided by the CA, Twelfth Division. Well-settled is the rule that one who is not a party to a case is not bound by any decision of the court; otherwise he will be deprived of his right to due process.[28] Respondent was never impleaded nor did it intervene in the said case relied upon by petitioners. Thus, the decision rendered by the CA, Twelfth Division cannot be enforced against respondent consistent with the rule enunciated by this Court that a person who was not impleaded in a case could not be bound by the decision rendered thereon for no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.[29] We agree with the CA that for its Fifteenth Division to simply adopt the findings of its Twelfth Division in a case wherein respondent was not impleaded as a party and did participate therein violates respondent's right to due process. Respondent had the right to have its own appeal evaluated by the appellate court on its own merits and not on the merits of another party's appeal. | |||||
|
2007-08-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Since Atty. Alobba did not timely seek any relief from the Resolutions, dated 25 October 2004 and 13 December 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85959, then the said Resolutions are therefore already considered final and executory as to her.[33] By her inaction, she is deemed to have accepted, and is thus already bound by the findings and directives of the Court of Appeals in the said Resolutions. To allow her to intervene now would be to sanction her obvious attempt to evade the finality of the Court of Appeals Resolutions as to her. | |||||
|
2004-09-09 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| While the application of this general rule certainly depends upon the surrounding circumstances of a given case,[12] there are exceptions recognized by this Court: "(1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law;[13] (2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property;[14] or (3) where the interests of justice[15] so require."[16] Woefully none of these exceptions apply herein. Thus, the Court cannot "step in and accord relief"[17] to petitioner, even if it may have suffered[18] by reason of its own arrant fatuity. | |||||
|
2004-02-06 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The issue in every petition for annulment of judgment is whether extrinsic fraud attended the rendition of the assailed decision. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in litigation committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party is prevented from fully exhibiting his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, such as by keeping him away from court, by giving a false promise of a compromise, or where the defendant never had any knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff, or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat.[24] These instances show that there was never really a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case so that the former judgment should be annulled and the case set for a new and fair hearing.[25] | |||||