ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

The Supreme Court decides: Clients should not be unfairly penalized for their lawyer’s mistakes, especially when it could deny them justice.

Photo from Pexels | August de Richelieu

The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.

Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.


AT A GLANCE:

The Supreme Court has reiterated that clients should not be unfairly penalized for their lawyer’s mistakes, especially when it could deny them justice.


Between the years 2005 and 2006, Fajardo et al. were engaged by Bataan Mariveles Port Services Corporation as laborers holding various positions and assigned at B-MEG Plant 1 of San Miguel Foods Inc. (SMFI). In 2008, they were absorbed by Hua Tong Far East Inc. (Hua Tong). Nevertheless, they continued their respective assignments at SMFI’s B-MEG Plant 1.

In 2019, SMFI informed Hua Tong that it was no longer renewing their business relationship upon the expiration of their agreement at the end of the year. Thus, Fajardo et al. were dismissed from employment. 

Fajardo et al. filed a case for illegal dismissal against SMFI and Hua Tong. After both the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commissions (NLRC) dismissed their complaint, they brought their case to the Court of Appeals (CA), where they had 60 days, or until December 10, 2022, to file a petition for certiorari.

However, their lawyer failed to prepare the petition despite prior arrangements and payment. Left without legal representation, they requested a 30-day extension to find a new lawyer and file their case.

The CA rejected their request, indicating that they had not made sufficient efforts to hire a new lawyer. Consequently, it dismissed their petition, which they filed through new legal counsel on January 10, 2023. 

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Fajardo et al., petition for certiorari.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

While the general rule is that a client is bound by mistakes or negligence of their counsel, there are certain exceptions, to wit: (1) when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its application will result in the outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require. 

In this case, Fajardo et al., who were minimum wage workers who do not have the luxury of readily switching from one lawyer to another. They do not know the intricacies of the procedural rules. Hence, their failure to immediately secure a new counsel should not be construed as a lack of effort on their part. 

Indubitably, the adage that “those who have less in life should have more in law” is not an empty platitude, especially when there is grave possibility that the less privileged, having relied in good faith on the assurances of a lawyer, were abruptly abandoned and were deprived of their right to due process. The Court rectifies this in the exercise of its primary duty, to render justice free from the constraints of technicalities. Verily, our courts and tribunals should strike a balance between public policy and the necessity of putting an end to litigation speedily, and yet, harmonizing such necessity with the right of litigants to an opportunity to be heard.

It is worth stressing, however, that this is not a judgment on the merits of Fajardo et al.’s grievances against SMFI and Hua Tong. The determination of whether or not they were illegally dismissed, and whether or not they were actually employees of SMFI, still lies within the sound discretion of the CA. 

 

Source:

Catalino E. Fajardo, et. al vs. San Miguel Foods, Inc. (B-MEG Plant 1) and Nasario Sarceda, Jr., Operations Manager
G.R. No. 267580 | November 11, 2024

 

Click here to subscribe to our newsletter

 

Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.

All rights reserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

0 Shares
Share
Tweet
Share