Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

TupasvsCourtofAppeals

G.R.No.89571
February61981
PreparedbyFranciscoAlba

Facts:
ThepetitionerscounselfiledapetitionforreviewwiththeCourtofAppealsonMay231989.Such
petitionwasdeniedhoweverduetobeing14dayslaterthanthedeadlineofthe15dayreglementary
periodwhichwasonMay101989.Becauseofthis,thepetitionerfiledthepresentpetitionwiththe
SupremeCourt.

Thepetitionerscontentionisthatthelatefilingwasduetotheircounselsnegligenceandthathe
cannotbeboundbythelattersmistakesasheisalaymanandnotfamiliarwiththeintricaciesofthe
law.Thus,heassertsthattheCourtofAppealswaswrongindenyinghisappeal.

Issue:
Whetherornotthefactthatthepetitionerwasprejudicedbyhiscounselsmistakesconstitutesdenialof
dueprocess.

Held:
TheCourtdeniedhispetition.

TheSupremeCourtheldthatthegeneralruleisthatclientsareboundbytheactionsoftheircounsel.
Theexceptionlieswhenthecounselsareinept,inbadfaith,ormisledbythefacts.Inthiscase,the
petitionerdidnotprovideevidencetosupportanyoftheseclaims.Infact,thepetitionersadmittedthat
theircounselwasaprestigiousmemberofthebarandthisshowsthelatterscompetency.

TheCourtsalsoclarifiedthemisconceptionthatprocedurallawsshouldbowtosubstantiveonesinthe
interestofdueprocess.However,itshouldbenotedthatithasalwaysbeenthepracticeoftheCourtsto
giveequalweighttoboth.Assuch,substantivelawsandprocedurallawsshouldbereadinharmonyto
effectrealdueprocessincourtproceedings.

Potrebbero piacerti anche