Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

SMC vs Laguesma

FACTS:
North Luzon Magnolia Sales Labor Union filed with DOLE a petition for certification
election among all the regular sales personnel of Magnolia Dairy Products in the North
Luzon Sales Area.
SMC opposes the petition claiming that there should be a separate bargaining unit for
each sales office.
SMC was represented by Atty. Ona's substitute, Atty. Batalla, when the petition was heard.
However, their counsel withdrew opposition and agreed to consider all the sales offices on
northern Luzon as one bargaining unit.
At the pre-election conference, the parties agreed on the date and time and place of the
consent election. North Luzon Magnolia Sales Labor Union won the election and was
certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all the regular sales personnel in all
the sales office of Magnolia Dairy Products in the North Luzon Sales Area.
SMC appealed to Sec. of Labor, Laguesma, claiming that their counsel was only
authorized to agree to: 1) having only one general election; 2) in the general election, the
individual sales offices shall still comprise separate bargaining units. Sec. Laguesma
denied appeal.
SMC prays that the resolution by Sec. Laguesma declaring respondent union as the sole
and exclusive bargaining agent of all Magnolia sales personnel in Northern Luzon be set
aside, for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of
discretion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is bound by its lawyer's act of agreeing to consider the sales
personnel in the North Luzon Sales Area as one bargaining unit.
HELD:
Yes. The Court found that the alleged "mistake" of substitute lawyer, Atty. Batalla, was the
direct result of their lawyer's negligence. Atty. Ona should have briefed the substitute
lawyer with respect to the matters involved in the case and the specific limits of his
authority. And as a general rule, a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. Only
when the application of the general rule would result in serious injustice should an
exception thereto be called for.

Premises considered, the Court affirmed challenged resolution and order of Sec. of Labor,
Laguesma.
[Labor Law; Bargaining Unit, defined.A bargaining unit is a group of employees
of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of
employees, consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be the best suited to
serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining
provisions of the law.
Same; Same; Factor in determining collective bargaining units.The fundamental
factors in determining the appropriate collective bargaining unit are: (1) the will of
the employees (Globe Doctrine); (2) affinity and unity of the employees interest,
such as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity or compensation and
working conditions (Substantial Mutual Interests Rule); (3) prior collective
bargaining history; and (4) similarity of employment status.
Same; Same; The collective bargaining history of a company is not decisive of what
should comprise the collective bargaining unit.Contrary to petitioners assertion,
this Court has categorically ruled that the existence of a prior collective bargaining
history is neither decisive nor conclusive in the determination of what constitutes
an appropriate bargaining unit.
Same; Same; Employees sought to be represented by the collective bargaining
agent must have substantial mutual interest.In-deed, the test of grouping is
mutuality or commonality of interests. The employees sought to be represented by
the collective bargaining agent must have substantial mutual interests in terms of
employment and working conditions as evinced by the type of work they perform.
Labor Law; Collective Bargaining Agreement; It is not the convenience of the
employer that constitutes the determinative factor in forming an appropriate
bargaining unit.]
People vs Salido
FACTS:
Loreta Chuas sons and housemaid were kidnapped and taken to a nipa hut in the middle
of a sugar field in Laguna, where the latter raped as well. Criminal Investigation Service
conducted a rescue operation, and after a brief gunfight was able to salvage the two sons
of Mrs. Chua and the housemaid. The next day some accused were brought to Camp
Crame by Chief Inspector Fortes team for questioning. On their way, the team
encountered a speeding Ford Codina, which was suspected as one of the cars used in the
kidnapping. They intercepted the vehicle and found Kawasa et al who were there arrested.
They were accused of kidnapping with serious illegal detention. The court found them
guilty of the crime.

Esmael Salido, and some others, were acquitted because the prosecution was not able to
prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Kawasa interposed an appeal asserting that there was a miscarriage of justice due to the
inefficiency and negligence of his counsel.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant can re-open his case on the grounds of his
counsels incompetency.
HELD:
No. It is a well-settled rule that the client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence and
mistakes in handling the case and the client ca not be heard to complain that the result
might have been different has his lawyer proceeded differently. [reason being is if such
grounds were to be admitted and reasons for reopening cases, there would never be an
end to a suit as long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that
the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned.]
it is only in cases involving gross or palpable negligence of counsel when the courts must
step in and accord relief to a client who has suffered thereby.
The records who that the counsel has done everything which is sufficient and relevant in
the exercise of his duties, i.e.attend hearings, cross-examine witnesses, presented
evidence.
The court held that if there was anybody to blame it was the accused-appellant himself for
having admitted things in his testimony. If he has truly felt that his counsel was inept, he
should have taken action, such as discharging him earlier.
The decision appealed from was affirmed with modification raising the indemnification of
the accused.
Albanzas vs IAC
FACTS:
Palma filed a complaint for recovery of possession damages against Lino and Nelly
Albanzas. RTC rendered judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed the complaint,
requiring the plaintiffs to pay defendants moral and exemplary damages. As well, it ordered
that upon complete payment by defendants of the purchased portion of Lot 37-A, that the
plaintiffs execute the corresponding deed transferring all rights and interests to the
defendants.

Palma appealed the trial courts decision to the IAC, but failed to file her brief within the
regulated period. Thus, the dismissal of the case and it being remanded to the trial court
for execution. Deed of sale was executed and duly annotated by the Clerk of Court on
August 20, 1975.
2 years after the dismissal of the appeal, Palmas counsel and IAC resolved to recall the
records, reinstate the appeal and grant another 30 days to Palma to file her brief on the
grounds that: a) Palma only knew of the IACs dismissal when she was informed that the
Albanzas held a victory party; b) that the failure to file brief was due to her counsels
negligence; c) the decision of the court was unjust.
IAC rendered a decision in favor of Palma, setting aside and reversing the judgment
appealed, and ordering the Albanzas to vacate the property in question.
ISSUE:
Wheter or not the IAC has jurisdiction to reconsider its own resolution dismissing the
appeal long after said resolution had become final and executory, and render another
decision on the merits.
HELD:
No. It is well-settled that once a decision has become final and executory, it is removed
from the power of jurisdiction of the Court which rendered it to further amend, much less
revoke. After the judgement has become final, no addition can be done therewith except its
execution.
The subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration cannot disturb the finality of a
judgment and restore jurisdiction which had already been lost.
The Court, furthermore emphasized that the client is bound by his counsel's conduct,
negligence and mistake in handling the case and the client cannot be heard to complain
that the result might have been different had its lawyer processed differently.
Premises considered, the respondent, IAC's resolution and decision are set aside as null
and void and the decision of the CFI is reinstated and affirmed.
Tupas vs CA
FACTS:
The petitioner's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration 14 days after having received
the RTCs decision.

The motion was denied, but instead of filing the petition for review with the IAC within the
remainder of the 15-day regulated period (which was only 1 more day), the counsel did so
14 days later, presumably under the belief that a new 15 day period had begun. Neither did
he move for an extension that would have been granted as a matter of course.
It follows that for having themselves forfeited the right to appeal, the petitioners cannot now
plaintively claim they have been denied due process.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners request to nullify all of the antecedent proceedings and
recognize the earlier claims in his case on the justification that his counsel was grossly
inept.
HELD:
No. the petitioners have not shown that their counsel was exceptionally inept or motivated
by bad faith or excusably misled by the facts. There is no reason why the Court should not
apply the rule that clients should be bound by the acts of their counsel, including his
mistakes.
Such a reason is hardly plausible as the petitioner's new counsel should know. Otherwise,
all a defeated party would have to do to salvage his case is claim neglect or mistake on the
part of his counsel as a ground for reversing the adverse judgment. There would be no end
to litigation.
The petitioner's submission that their counsel's failure to appeal on time should be
regarded as excusable neglect or honest error is not compatible with his impressive
credentials. He is a prestigious member of the bar and his conduct at the trial
demonstrated his experience and skill as a trial lawyer. The petitioners themselves
describe him as a graduate of one of the top law schools ion the country.
The Court found it clear that the respondent court did not commit any reversible error in
dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of tardiness. Motion for reconsideration
was denied.
Legarda vs CA
FACTS:
Legarda, owner of a parcel of land and its improvements located at 123 West Ave. Quezon
City, was alleged to have entered into a lease agreement with New Cathay House Inc. for a
period of 5 years. (Rental is P25,000 per month with 55% escalation per year). Private
respondent deposited P72,000 as downpayment of rentals, drew up the written contract

and sent it to Legarda, which the latter failed and refused to execute and sign. Thus, the
delay allegedly causing damage to the private respondent.
Legarda engaged the services of counsel to handle her case, who filed an urgent motion
for extension of time to file, but still failed to file the answer within the extended period
prayed for. This led to private respondent's filing of ex-parte motion to declare petitioner in
default, which was granted by the trial court.
The decision was duly served to counsel of Legarda but he did not take any action, making
the judgment final and executory.
The property was sold at a public auction to Cabrera. The one-year redemption period
expired without the petitioner redeeming the property and so ownership was consolidated
in the name of Cabrera, a final certificate of sale issued in his favor.
Petitioner upon knowledge of the happening prevailed upon her counsel to seek
appropriate relief. Counsel filed a petition for annulment of judgment calling attention to the
unjust enrichment of private respondent in securing the transfer in its name.
The parties came to an agreement to settle their differences. Private respondent assured
petitioner that they will withdraw the complaint it filed so petitioner told her counsel there
was no need to file an answer to the complaint; that the private respondent still filed the
motion for ex-parte to declare the petitioner in default; that the petitioner was deprived of
the right to present her defense through false pretenses, misrepresentation and fraud
practiced by private respondent; that the property worth 2 million pesos was sold at a
poublic auction for P376,500.
Thus, it was prayed that a preliminary mandatory injunction be issued ordering: 1) the
private respondent to surrender the property to petitioner; 2) to enjoin the former from
further harassing and threatening the peaceful possession of petitioner; 3) hat the decision
of the RTC, and the certificate of sale be annulled.
CA dismissed the petition for annulment. A copy of the said judgment was served to the
counsel of the petitioner but he did not file a motion for reconsideration or appeal
therefrom, thus the judgment's finality. It was after some time that the petitioner, through
the counsel's secretary, learned of the adverse decision against her.
Petitioner secured services of another lawyer who filed a petition for certiorari, praying for
the annulment of the RTC's and CA's decision, and the sale of property, as they are
attributable to the gross negligence and inefficiency of petitioner's former counsel.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the counsels actions, in this case, should bind his client.
HELD:
No. Despite the counsel's reputation, the Court found that he may have abandoned the
cause of the petitioner. The petitioner, almost throughout the RTC trial was abroad, and
was shocked to learn of what happened to her property and the case when she got home.
Still she did not lose faith in her counsel and proceeded with a petition with the CA. Former
counsel, after the CA's decision, again failed to take necessary action in pursuance of his
client's benefit. And it was only after repeated phone calls that petitioner learned, from the
the former counsel's secretary, of the CA's decision dismissing the petition.
A lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of his client, warmth and zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability,
to the end that nothing can be taken or withheld from his client except in accordance with
the law.
A counsel should present every remedy or defense authorized by the law in support of his
client;s cause, regardless of his personal views. he must not, in the full discharge of his
duties to his client, be afraid of the possibility that he may displease the judge or the
general public.
The Court disagrees that the negligence of the counsel in this case should bind the
petitioner, as the CA held.
Petition was granted and the questionable decision of RTC; the decision of the CA; and
certificate of sale; and subsequent final deed of sale were declared null and void.