As a newbie to the legal profession, my heart shattered upon receiving Resolutions that denied my Motions (e.g. Motion to Reopen the Preliminary Investigation and Motion for Reconsideration of the Prosecutor's Resolution in another case.) Both motions required verification by the complainant/defendant or affiant for proper filing in accordance with the Prosecutor’s rules of procedure.
For those who may perceive criminal law as merely an abstract study of legal doctrines, it's crucial to reconsider and recognize its practical implications.
The study of criminal law must extend beyond theoretical concepts and engage with the intricate web of rules and regulations governing procedural aspects of cases. Understanding the substantive law is inherently intertwined with comprehending the procedural aspects of a case. 🥹
RELATED
RE: Negligence and mistakes of counsel are binding on the client
Absent a showing that the 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.
Thus, the Court stated in Lagua v. Court of Appeals:
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.
RATIONALE
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.)
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)
More succinct is the recent Almendras, Jr. v. Almendras, 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.
✍️ @attyphiljuris
Comments