Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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.