Lawyers' mistakes binding on clients

The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural techniques. But when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court, the case may be reopened to afford the client the right to due process. This rule and exception is applied in this case of PLX Inc., a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of wood furniture that has sales and display rooms in malls.

Among its employees was Patsy who was occupying the position of saleslady assigned to its sales room in a South Mall. Patsy had been complaining that PLX had not been paying her monthly commission, underpayment of salary by P50 monthly, non-payment of sick leave and vacation leave and 13th month pay. Since her claims were ignored, the labor union where she belongs filed a complaint against PLX and Max its manager, in behalf of Patsy.

Subsequent to such filing, Patsy found herself reassigned to another showroom of PLX in another branch of the Mall so remote from her place of residence that required her to travel 3 to 4 hours a day. Hence she subsequently amended her complaint to include constructive illegal dismissal.

In their defense, PLX and Max cited an incident where Patsy and another employee were found to have been manipulating the sales record of the company enabling them to pocket the sum of P460,167.79. PLX said that Patsy and her co-employee admitted the said manipulation and out of humanitarian reasons, it accepted the admission and the offer of the two for repayment of the amount through payroll deduction. Said arrangement was even in writing. Hence PLX said that Patsy’s complaint had no basis at all.

But the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled that since the company already condoned the offense, it is precluded from doing further acts which are deemed prejudicial to Patsy’s interest. Thus, the LA ruled that her transfer to another far away branch which would cause inconvenience to her and against her will, amounted to constructive illegal dismissal. It thus ordered her reinstatement to her former position and station with payment of back salaries and other monetary claims.

PLX and Max filed a motion for reconsideration of said ruling while Patsy opposed it. The NLRC treated the said motion as an appeal for the LA’s decision but dismissed the same for failure to post a bond as mandated by law. This NLRC dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

PLX and Max, represented by a new lawyer however questioned the said rulings. It argued that they should not suffer the consequences of their former counsel’s negligence and/or gross ignorance of the rules of procedure because gross injustice would result as they would be denied due process of law. Were they correct?

No. This ground cannot be lightly invoked. Otherwise there would be no end to a suit so long as a new counsel would be employed who could allege and show that the prior counsel has not been sufficiently diligent, or experienced or learned.

As long as a party is given an opportunity to be heard and defend its interest in due course, it cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity is the very essence of due process. The negligence of a former counsel must be so gross, reckless and inexcusable as will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice. Simple negligence is not enough for the relaxation of this rule.

In the light of these standards and considering that PLX and Max were given full opportunity to be heard and present their side to refute Patsy’s claims against them in the proceedings before the LA, the failure of their former counsel to post the bond amounts to simple, not gross negligence that will warrant the application of the exception to the general rule about the client being bound by the acts or mistakes of his counsel (Philux Inc. et.al. vs. NLRC et al. G.R. 151854, September 3, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

E-mail at: [email protected]