Every counsel has the implied authority to do all acts which are necessary or incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client. Any act performed by counsel within the scope if his general and implied authority is, in the eyes of the law, regarded as the act of the client himself. Consequently, the mistake or negligence of the client's counsel, which may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment, generally binds the client. To rule otherwise would encourage every defeated party, in order to salvage his case, to claim neglect or mistake on the part of his counsel. Then, there would be no end to litigation, as every shortcoming of counsel could be the subject of challenge by his client through another counsel who, if he is also found wanting, would likewise be disowned by the same client through another counsel, and so on, ad infinitum.
This rule admits of EXCEPTIONS, i.e., where the counsel's mistake is so great and serious that without due process of law:
- the client is deprived of his day in court; or
- the client is deprived of his property.
In these cases, the client is not bound by his counsel's mistakes and the case may even be reopened in order to give the client another chance to present his case. In the case at bar, however, these exceptional circumstances do not obtain.
At this point, the SC reiterated the principle that possession of a lost owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of title is not necessarily equivalent to ownership of the land covered by it. Registration of real property under the Torrens system does not create or vest title because it is not a more of acquiring ownership. The certificate of title by itself, does not vest ownership; it is merely an evidence of title over the particular property described therein.
No comments:
Post a Comment