Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    Milla Vs People

    Uploaded by

    baba2817
    Petitioner argued that his counsel's negligence in filing a demurrer to evidence without advising him deprived him of due process. The court ruled that while an attorney's mistakes normally bind the client, negligence must be so gross as to require relief. In this case, the petitioner was able to file a demurrer and present evidence, and the trial court allowed further opportunities to defend the case. Therefore, the actions of the counsel did not grossly deprive the petitioner of due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Milla Vs People

    Uploaded by

    baba2817
    67 views1 page
    Petitioner argued that his counsel's negligence in filing a demurrer to evidence without advising him deprived him of due process. The court ruled that while an attorney's mistakes normally bind the client, negligence must be so gross as to require relief. In this case, the petitioner was able to file a demurrer and present evidence, and the trial court allowed further opportunities to defend the case. Therefore, the actions of the counsel did not grossly deprive the petitioner of due process.

    Original Description:

    Milla vs People

    Original Title

    Milla vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner argued that his counsel's negligence in filing a demurrer to evidence without advising him deprived him of due process. The court ruled that while an attorney's mistakes normally bind the client, negligence must be so gross as to require relief. In this case, the petitioner was able to file a demurrer and present evidence, and the trial court allowed further opportunities to defend the case. Therefore, the actions of the counsel did not grossly deprive the petitioner of due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views1 page

    Milla Vs People

    Uploaded by

    baba2817
    Petitioner argued that his counsel's negligence in filing a demurrer to evidence without advising him deprived him of due process. The court ruled that while an attorney's mistakes normally bind the client, negligence must be so gross as to require relief. In this case, the petitioner was able to file a demurrer and present evidence, and the trial court allowed further opportunities to defend the case. Therefore, the actions of the counsel did not grossly deprive the petitioner of due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Milla vs People.

    Facts:
    In this case Petioner argues that the negligence of his counsel Atty. Mendoza deprived him of due
    process. Specifically, he states that after prosecution rested its case, Atty. Mendoza filed a demurrer to
    evidence, and that the former was never advised by the latter of the demurrer. Thus Petitioner was
    purportedly surprised to discover that the RTC has already rendered judgment finding him guilty, and
    that it had issued a warrant for arrest. Atty. Mendoza filed and Omnibus Motion for leave to file Motion
    for New trial, which petitioner claims to have been denied by the trial court for being an inappropriate
    remedy, thus, demonstrating his counsels negligence.
    Issue:
    Whether or not negligence of the counsel binds the client
    Whether or not negligence of the petitioners counsel deprive him of due process of law.
    Ruling:
    The general rule is that the mistake of a counsel binds the client and it is only in instances wherein the
    negligence is so gross or palpable that the court must step in to grant relief to the aggrieved client.
    In this case , Petitioner was able to file demurrer to evidence, and upon the trial courts denial thereof,
    was allowed to present evidence. Because of this failure to do so, RTC was justified in considering that
    he had waived his right thereto.
    Nevertheless, the trial court still allowed him to submit a memorandum in the interest of justice.
    It can be gleaned upon from the foregoing circumstances that the petitioner was given opportunities to
    defend his case and was granted concomitant reliefs. Thus it cannot be said that the mistake and
    negligence of his former counsel were so gross and palpable to have him deprived of due process.

    You might also like