The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that clients should not be unduly penalized for the mistakes or negligence of their lawyers, particularly when it results in a denial of justice.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the Court’s Third Division ruled in favor of a group of laborers, granting them additional time to file their petition after their lawyer failed to do so.

The laborers had initially filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against their employer. After the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed their case, they elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA). They had until December 10, 2022, to file a petition for certiorari.

However, their lawyer failed to prepare and file the petition despite prior arrangements and full payment. Left without legal representation close to the deadline, the laborers sought a 30-day extension until January 10, 2023, to secure new counsel and file their petition.

The CA denied their request, reasoning that they did not exert enough effort to immediately hire a new lawyer. Their petition, filed through new counsel on January 10, 2023, was consequently dismissed.

The laborers brought their case before the Supreme Court, which reversed the CA’s decision.

The Supreme Court explained that while procedural rules set deadlines, courts may exercise discretion to extend these periods when warranted. It stressed that although clients are generally bound by their lawyer’s acts, there are exceptions—especially when a lawyer’s negligence results in a violation of due process or deprives the client of property or liberty.

The Court emphasized:

“If the strict application of the rules would tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, the Court is not without power to relax procedural rules and prevent a miscarriage of justice.”

Recognizing the laborers’ situation as minimum-wage workers with limited access to legal resources, the Court noted that they were left vulnerable and without recourse when their lawyer abandoned them. It held that they could not reasonably be expected to immediately find new legal counsel under such circumstances.

The Court further underscored that the law must protect the marginalized:

“The adage that ‘those who have less in life should have more in law’ is not an empty platitude, especially when the less privileged are abandoned by their lawyer and deprived of due process. The Court acts to correct this and ensure that justice is not denied by technicalities.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reinstated the laborers’ petition and ordered the Court of Appeals to resolve the case on its merits. Additionally, it directed the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to investigate the conduct of the laborers’ former lawyer for possible administrative sanctions.