CASE 2020-0013: SPOUSES AGERICO ABROGAR AND CARMELITA ABROGAR VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 221046. JANUARY 22, 2020) (SUBJECT/S: WHEN COUNSEL’S NEGLIGENCE CAN BE USED TO IMPLORE LIBERAL APPLICATION OF RULES) (BRIEF TITLE: SPOUSES ABROGAR VS LAND BANK)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

DISPO

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

PETITIONERS OBTAINED LOAN FROM LAND BANK. IT DEFAULTED. TO AVOID FORECLOSURE PETITIONERS FILED A CASE IN RTC TO ENJOIN LAND BANK TO ALLOW THEM TO SETTLE. RTC DISMISSED THE CASE. PETITIONERS APPEALED TO CA BY WAY OF CERTIORARI. CA DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF WRONG APPEAL. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIMPLE APPEAL AND NOT CERTIORARI. PETITIONERS SEEKS LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES BECAUSE THE MISTAKE WAS DUE TO THEIR LAWYER’S NEGLIGENCE. SC SAID PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THEIR LAWYER ACTED WITH MALICE AND THUS THEY CANNOT AVAIL OF THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES.

 

WHAT IS THE GENERAL RULE WITH REGARD’S TO LAWYER’S NEGLIGENCE?

 

THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE COUNSEL BINDS THE CLIENT.

 

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE?

 

YES, WHEN THE RECKLESS OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF THE COUNSEL DEPRIVES THE CLIENT OF DUE PROCESS OF LWAS BUT COUNSEL’S ERROR MUST BE SO PALPABLE AND MALICIOUSLY EXERCISED THAT IT WOULD VIABLY BE THE BASIS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

 

DOCTRINE

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

 

SCD-2020-0013-Spouses Agerico Abrogar and Carmelita Abrogar Vs. Land Bank of the Philippines 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.