Saturday, September 23, 2006
Negligence of counsel
By Dominador A. Almirante
Labor case digest
The decision of the labor arbiter was received at the office of the counsel for respondents, Rodrigo Lapez and Reynaldo Gamutan, at 840 Extremadura St., España, Manila on July 14, 2000.
The counsel, who appeared on behalf of the law office, averred that he was at the time attending to cases in Bohol and was able to receive a copy of the decision only on Sept. 8, 2000.
On Sept. 12, 2000, or on the 60th day following the receipt of the decision, respondents’ counsel appealed the same to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC dismissed the appeal for having been filed beyond the 10-calendar day period to file one. Was the dismissal justified?
Ruling: Yes.
In respondents’ case, Atty. Caballero who appeared for their counsel-law office proffered, as earlier stated, that at the time copy of the labor arbiter’s decision was received at the law office, (on July 12, 2000), he was “attending to his cases in …his home province…”
Such explanation-excuse does not lie, however. The receipt by respondents’ counsel-law office of the labor arbiter’s decision bound respondents (its clients). And the failure or negligence of respondents’ counsel to timely lodge the appeal bound them.
While the rule that negligence of counsel binds the client may be relaxed where adherence thereto would result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property or where the interests of justice so require, respondents have not shown, nay alleged, why a relaxation of the rule is called for.
On the contrary, the uncontroverted facts of the case incline against respondents. (Southech Development Corp. and/or Remcor and Ricardo Lu versus NLRC, et. al., G.R. No. 149590, Jan. 12, 2005)
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (September 23, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here.
|
