This document discusses a legal case regarding an attorney's authority and responsibilities. The Supreme Court ruled that clients are generally bound by the actions of their attorneys, even if mistakes are made. Specifically, the Court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners, as their previous attorney filed the initial petition for review late. While the petitioners claimed they should not be penalized for their attorney's error, the Court found no proof that the attorney was exceptionally incompetent or acting in bad faith. Allowing clients to invalidate proceedings due to attorney mistakes could lead to endless relitigation.
This document discusses a legal case regarding an attorney's authority and responsibilities. The Supreme Court ruled that clients are generally bound by the actions of their attorneys, even if mistakes are made. Specifically, the Court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners, as their previous attorney filed the initial petition for review late. While the petitioners claimed they should not be penalized for their attorney's error, the Court found no proof that the attorney was exceptionally incompetent or acting in bad faith. Allowing clients to invalidate proceedings due to attorney mistakes could lead to endless relitigation.
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
This document discusses a legal case regarding an attorney's authority and responsibilities. The Supreme Court ruled that clients are generally bound by the actions of their attorneys, even if mistakes are made. Specifically, the Court denied a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners, as their previous attorney filed the initial petition for review late. While the petitioners claimed they should not be penalized for their attorney's error, the Court found no proof that the attorney was exceptionally incompetent or acting in bad faith. Allowing clients to invalidate proceedings due to attorney mistakes could lead to endless relitigation.
Droits d'auteur :
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formats disponibles
Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
TOPIC: AUHTORITY TO APPEAR, AUTHORITY TO BIND CLIENTS, COMPENSATION, ATTYS LIEN
TUPAS VS. CA AEQUETAS NUNQUAM CONTRAVENIT LEGIS EQUITY NEVER CONTRAVENES THE LAWS. Ponente: Justice CRUZ, 1991 FACTS: Petitioners received a copy of the RTC and then they filed their respective motion for reconsideration 14 days later. The motion was denied, instead, of filling the petition for review with the court of appeals with the remainder of the 15 day reglementary period , that is, a day after they received the order, petitioner filed the said petition 14 days after. The petition was denied by the Court of Appeals on grounds of tardiness. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. They allege that they should not be prejudiced by the mistakes of their counsel because they are laymen and not familiar with the intricacies of the law. DECISION: The motion was denied with finality by the Court. The Court found that the petitioners have not shown that their counsel was exceptionally inept or motivated by bad faith or excusably misled by the facts. There is no reason why we should not apply the rule that clients should be bound by the acts of their counsel, including his mistakes The Court stated, Now petitioner wants us to nullify all of the antecedent proceedings and recognize his earlier claims to the disputed property on the justification that his counsel was grossly inept. There would be no end to litigation if this were allowed as every shortcoming of counsel could be the subject of challenge by his client through another counsel who, if he is also found wanting, would likewise be disowned by the same client through another counsel, and so on.
Pecson Vs Mediavillo (1914) - Insanity and Tender Years of Disinherited Heir at The Time of The Commission of The Cause For Disinheritance Invalidates The Provision of Disinheritance