ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 130548. May 17, 1999]

ABAIGAR vs. LEANDA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 17 1999.

G.R. No. 130548 (Panfilo Abaigar vs. Prospero Leanda, Luis Baco and Pablito Pachoco.)

The rule is settled that a client is bound by the mistake or negligence of his counsel,1 [Five Star Bus Co. vs. 259 SCRA 120.] unless it is so grave as to amount to deprivation of property without due process.2 [Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 418.] This case is not an exception.

The Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated May 20, 1997, dismissed petitioner's appeal for having filed the appellant's brief 28 days late.3 [Petition, Rollo, p. 7.] Subsequently, the same court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration favor having been filed 11 days late. Petitioner attributed these delays to his lawyer's negligence and dishonesty in handling the case.

Though we sympathize with the loss of the petitioner, we cannot simply set aside the technical ruled of procedure every time a lawyer mishandles a case. Be that as it may, petitioner is not left without any remedy in law. He could, in a proper action, recover damages from his negligent lawyer.

While litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.4 [Garbo vs. 258 SCRA 159.]

WHEREFORE, we resolve to DENY the petition.

No costs.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE