BASIC LEGAL ETHICS (8)

1. (a) Is a client bound by the negligence of his counsel? Reason.

Yes. The Client is generally bound by attorney’s conduct, negligence and

mistake in handling a case or in the management of litigation and in procedural
technique, and he cannot complain that the result might have been different had his
lawyer proceeded differently.

Exceptions: (LIPIG)

1. Lack of acquaintance with technical aspect of procedure;

2. When adherence thereto results in outright deprivation of client’s liberty
or property or where Interest of justice so requires;
3. Where error by counsel is Purely technical which does not substantially
affect client’s cause;
4. Ignorance, incompetence, or inexperience of lawyer is so great and error so
serious that client, who has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied a day in
court; and
5. Gross negligence of lawyer.

InBejarasco,JR.,vsPeople, the SC held that the party-litigant should not rely

totally to the counsel to litigate his case. The general rule is that a client is bound by
the counsel’s acts, including even mistakes in the realm of procedural
technique. The rationale for the rule is that a counsel, once retained, holds the
implied authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution
and management of the suit in behalf of his client, such that any act or omission by
counsel within the scope of the authority is regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act
or omission of the client himself.A recognized exception to the rule is when the
reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law.
For the exception to apply, however, the gross negligence should not be
accompanied by the client’s own negligence or malice, considering that the client has
the duty to be vigilant in respect of his interests by keeping himself up-to-date on
the status of the case. Failing in this duty, the client should suffer whatever adverse
judgment is rendered against him.

Truly, a litigant bears the responsibility to monitor the status of his case, for
no prudent party leaves the fate of his case entirely in the hands of his lawyer. It is
the client’s duty to be in contact with his lawyer from time to time in order to be
informed of the progress and developments of his case; hence, to merely rely on the
bare reassurances of his lawyer that everything is being taken care of is not enough.
(Bejarasco,JR.,vsPeople)

(b) Explain the doctrine of imputed knowledge (notice to counsel is notice to client).

Doctrine of Imputed Knowledge − the knowledge acquired by an attorney during the

time that he is acting within the scope of his authority is imputed to the client. It is
based on the assumption that an attorney, who has notice of matter affecting his
client, has communicated the same to his principal in the course of professional
dealings. The doctrine applies regardless of whether or not the lawyer actually
communicated to the client what he learned in his professional capacity, the attorney
and his client being one juridical person.

Exceptions to the Rule that Notice to Counsel is Notice to Client

1. If strict application might foster dangerous collusion to the detriment of justice.
2. Service of notice upon party instead of upon his attorney is ordered by court.
3. Notice of pre- trial is required to be served upon parties and their respective
lawyers.
4. In appeal from the lower court to the RTC, upon docketing of appeal.

Note: Notice to counsel is notice to client, but not vice versa if the latter appeared by
attorney

General Rule: The law requires that service of any notice upon a party who has
appeared by attorney shall be made upon his attorney. Notice sent to a party who has
appeared by counsel is not notice in law, it being immaterial that the client actually
received the notice or volunteered to get a copy thereof.