Oct 29, 20233 min read

A client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel

Absent a showing that petitioner regularly followed up with his counsel as to the status of the case, a mere endorsement does not relieve a client of the negligence of his counsel.

Ads.

2024 BAR EXAM ESSENTIALS

🎯 Lex Schola Bar Book🎯

Thus, the Court stated in Lagua v. Court of Appeals: 19

Nothing is more settled than the rule that the negligence and mistakes of counsel are binding on the client. Otherwise, there would never be an end to a suit, so long as counsel could allege its own fault or negligence to support the client's case and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by the operation of law.

Ads.

Bar Syllabus (2024) Binder Notebook (Exam-Outline)

The rationale for this rule is reiterated in the recent case Bejarasco v. People:

"The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsel's acts, including even mistakes in the realm of procedural technique. The rationale for the rule is that a counsel, once retained, holds the implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client himself."

It is the client's duty to be in contact with his lawyer from time to time in order to be informed of the progress and developments of his case; hence, to merely rely on the bare reassurances of his lawyer that everything is being taken care of is not enough. (Emphasis supplied.)

Ads.

Bar Q&A (2023 Ed.) - Political Law - Carlo Cruz - Questions and Answers

As clients, petitioners should have maintained contact with their counsel from time to time, and informed themselves of the progress of their case, thereby exercising that standard of care "which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon his business."

RELATED

Role of Lawyers: Drafting Pleadings and Facilitating the Administration of Justice |

In Tan v. Court of Appeals, the Court explained:

As clients, petitioners should have maintained contact with their counsel from time to time, and informed themselves of the progress of their case, thereby exercising that standard of care "which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon his business."

(emphasis supplied)

Ads.

Bar Review Notes (2023) [Hardcover]

More succinct is the recent Almendras, Jr. v. Almendras,20 where the Court categorically stated:

Settled is the rule that a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. The only exception is when the negligence of the counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court. In such instance, the remedy is to reopen the case and allow the party who was denied his day in court to adduce evidence. However, perusing the case at bar, we find no reason to depart from the general rule.

Ads.