Negligence of Counsel

It is a well-settled rule that the client is bound by the counsel's conduct, negligence, and mistakes in handling the case; and the client cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had his lawyer proceeded differently.

In People of the Philippines and Bricio Ygana v. Rafael Bitanga, an exception to the foregoing rule is enunciated, and that is when the negligence of counsel had been so egregious that it prejudiced his client's interest and denied him his day in court. For this exception to apply, however, the gross negligence of counsel should not be accompanied by his client's own negligence or malice. Clients have the duty to be vigilant of their interests by keeping themselves up to date on the status of their case. (Pascual v. People, G.R. No. 162286, June 5, 2009)

It is, however, an oft-repeated ruling that the negligence and mistakes of counsel bind the client.  A departure from this rule would bring about never-ending suits, so long as lawyers could allege their own fault or negligence to support the client’s case and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by the operation of law. The only exception would be, where the lawyer's gross negligence would result in the grave injustice of depriving his client of the due process of law. In this case, there was no such deprivation of due process. Respondent was able to fully present and argue her case before the Labor Arbiter.  She was accorded the opportunity to be heard.  Her failure to appeal the Labor Arbiter's Decision cannot, therefore, be deemed as a deprivation of her right to due process (Building Care Corporation / Leopard Security & Investigation Agency and/or Ruperto Protacio Vs. Myrna Macaraeg, G.R. No. 198357. December 5, 2012).