The petitioner Air Philippines Corporation appealed a lower court ruling in favor of the respondent International Business Aviation Services Philippines due to the negligence of its counsel. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's motion for a new trial, upholding the principle that the negligence of counsel binds the client. Specifically, the Court found that the counsel's failure to file documents, attend hearings, and timely respond did not rise beyond simple negligence. As such, none of the exceptions for gross negligence depriving due process or outright deprivation of property applied in this case. The negligence of counsel was not sufficient grounds to accord the petitioner relief or a new trial.
The petitioner Air Philippines Corporation appealed a lower court ruling in favor of the respondent International Business Aviation Services Philippines due to the negligence of its counsel. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's motion for a new trial, upholding the principle that the negligence of counsel binds the client. Specifically, the Court found that the counsel's failure to file documents, attend hearings, and timely respond did not rise beyond simple negligence. As such, none of the exceptions for gross negligence depriving due process or outright deprivation of property applied in this case. The negligence of counsel was not sufficient grounds to accord the petitioner relief or a new trial.
The petitioner Air Philippines Corporation appealed a lower court ruling in favor of the respondent International Business Aviation Services Philippines due to the negligence of its counsel. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's motion for a new trial, upholding the principle that the negligence of counsel binds the client. Specifically, the Court found that the counsel's failure to file documents, attend hearings, and timely respond did not rise beyond simple negligence. As such, none of the exceptions for gross negligence depriving due process or outright deprivation of property applied in this case. The negligence of counsel was not sufficient grounds to accord the petitioner relief or a new trial.
AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS., INC., respondent. Facts The Air Philippines, Inc., was in need of the services of a business establishment to ferry its B-737 airplane, from the United States of America to the Philippines, API, engaged the services of IBASPI, and IBASPI did engage the services of UWAI. UWAI sent its Billings to API, through IBASPI. API failed to pay its account, IBASPI was impelled to advance and pay to UWAI. After several demand letters was sent by IBASPI to API, no payment was effected. IBASPI filed a complaint. The Court issued a Pre-Trial Notice setting the pre-trial conference, requiring the parties to file their respective Pre-Trial Brief at least two (2) days before the scheduled pre-trial. The respondent did file its Pre-Trial Brief. Atty. Manolito Manalo, counsel of the petitioner, ended up filing three motions to extend the filing of petitioners Answer, he did not appear during the scheduled pretrials, and the failed to file petitioners pretrial Brief. The Court rendered judgment in favor of the respondent and against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial. The Court denied the Motion for New Trial. The petitioner filed an appeal to the CA. The CA ruled that petitioner could not avail itself of a new trial. Petitioner appealed to the SC. Issues Whether the Motion for New Trial should be denied. Ruling New Trial Not Warranted by Simple Negligence of Counsel Axiomatic is the rule that "negligence of counsel binds the client." 8 The basis is the tenet that an act performed by counsel within the scope of a "general or implied authority"9 is regarded as an act of the client. 10 "Consequently, the mistake or negligence of counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against the client."11 While the application of this general rule certainly depends upon the surrounding circumstances of a given case, 12 there are exceptions recognized by this Court: "(1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law;13 (2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property;14 or (3) where the interests of justice 15 so require."16 Woefully none of these exceptions apply herein. Thus, the Court cannot "step in and accord relief"17 to petitioner, even if it may have suffered 18 by reason of its own arrant fatuity. There was only a plain "disregard of some duty imposed by law," 20 a slight want of care that "circumstances reasonably impose," 21 and a mere failure to exercise that degree of care 22 that an ordinarily prudent person would take under the circumstances. Simple negligence of counsel binds the client.
G.R. No. L-69901 July 31, 1987 ANTONIO RAMON ONGSIAKO, Petitioner, Intermediate Appellate Court and The People of The Philippines, Respondents. CRUZ, J.