Clients should not be penalized for their lawyer's mistakes—SC
Clients should not suffer for their lawyer's mistakes, especially when it could deny them justice, the Supreme Court said.
The high court, in a decision released on March 28 by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, gave a labor group extra time to file their pleading after their lawyer failed to do so.
In January 2021, laborers Catalino E. Fajardo, George T. Prudencio, Norberto L. Gubian, Jayson R. Sanguyo, Gaudioso A. Bascal Jr., Ireneo L. Loyola, Danton B. Nuevo Jr., Joey M. Calimlim, Juanito M. Sorosoro Jr., and Jhoemar Fajardo filed a case against their employer San Miguel Foods Inc. and Hua Tong Far East Inc. for illegal dismissal.
Later in the year, the labor arbiter and National Labor Relations Commissions dismissed their complaint. After their motion for reconsideration was denied in September 2022, the group had 60 days to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
However, their lawyer, Atty. Geneses Abot, failed to prepare the petition despite previous arrangement and payment, according to the decision.
"They further alleged that they agreed to meet Atty. Abot at his office on Nov. 28, 2022, but the latter bailed on them. Thus, they were still looking to secure the services of a new counsel," the ruling read.
Because of this delay, the laborers filed their petition for certiorari through a new lawyer in January 2023. However, the CA rejected this and said they "did not exert enough effort to secure the services of a new counsel."
After they appealed to the SC, the high court sided with the group, stating that clients are not bound by the mistakes or negligence of their counsel when "the reckless of gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law."
“Indubitably, the adage that ‘those who have less in life should have more in law’ is not an empty platitude, especially when there is a grave possibility that the less privileged, having relied in good faith on the assurances of a lawyer, were abruptly abandoned and were deprived their right to due process," Gaerlan wrote.
"The Court rectifies this in the exercise of its primary duty, to render justice free from the constraints of technicalities."
In addition to reinstating the case, the SC has ordered the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to investigate Abot's conduct "for potential administrative liability."
