The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday said clients should not be unfairly penalized for their lawyer’s mistakes, especially when it could deny them justice.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division instructed the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to investigate a lawyer’s conduct for potential administrative liability as a member of the Bar.
In a case of illegal dismissal, the said lawyer failed to prepare the petition despite prior arrangements and payment.
Left without legal representation, the laborers requested a 30-day extension, or until January 10, 2023, to find a new lawyer and file their case.
The SC underscored that although clients are generally bound by their lawyer’s actions, there are exceptions, such as when a lawyer’s negligence violates due process or leads to the loss of a client’s liberty or property.
“Indeed, if the strict application of the rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, the Court is not without power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the rules of procedure and preventing a miscarriage of justice,” the SC said.
The High Tribunal affirmed the principle that the law should protect the most vulnerable.
“Our courts and tribunals should strike a balance between public policy and necessity – that of putting an end to litigation speedily, and yet harmonizing such necessity with the right of a litigant to an opportunity to be heard,” the SC added.
The High Court underscored that although clients are generally bound by their lawyer’s actions, there are exceptions such as when a lawyer’s negligence violates due process or leads to the loss of a client’s liberty or property.
The Court’s emphasis on balancing procedural rules with the fundamental right to be heard highlights a critical aspect of judicial discretion. It acknowledges that strict adherence to rules, while often necessary for efficiency, should not come at the expense of fairness. This flexibility allows courts to address situations where procedural errors, even those committed by counsel, might unjustly deprive a party of their day in court. This approach underscores the judiciary’s role as a guardian of justice, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not become insurmountable barriers to equitable outcomes.
Furthermore, the High Court’s pronouncement serves as a reminder to legal practitioners of their duty to exercise diligence and competence in representing their clients. The potential for judicial intervention in cases of egregious negligence should not be interpreted as a license for laxity. Rather, it reinforces the gravity of the lawyer-client relationship and the profound impact that a lawyer’s actions can have on a client’s rights and interests. By acknowledging the exceptions to the general rule of client-bound actions, the Court establishes a safeguard against the potential for abuse or incompetence within the legal profession.
In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision seeks to navigate the complex interplay between procedural regularity and substantive justice. It advocates for a pragmatic approach, where rules are applied judiciously and with a keen awareness of their potential consequences. This stance reflects a commitment to ensuring that the legal system serves as a mechanism for achieving just and equitable resolutions, rather than a rigid framework that prioritizes form over substance.
Editor’s Note: This is an updated article. Originally posted with the headline “SC: Clients should not suffer for lawyer’s mistakes.”