Clenio dating 43

For a claim of a counsels [gross] negligence to prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the clients cause must be shown. Corpuz was present all throughout the presentation of the prosecutions evidence.

While he allegedly failed to communicate with the petitioners for nearly three years and to inform them about the status of their case, this omission, however, does not amount to abandonment that qualifies as gross negligence.

clenio dating 43-69

As can be gleaned from the records, hearings were scheduled by the Sandiganbayan for the parties presentation of evidence.

However, due to the repeated absences of the accused and the prosecution witnesses; as well as the motions for cancellation filed both by the prosecution and the defense counsels, the hearings had been postponed several times.

If at all, the omission is only an act of simple negligence, and not gross negligence that would warrant the annulment of the proceedings below.

Besides, as far as the court is concerned, the petitioners were already duly notified, through their counsel, of the entire proceedings in the case.

RESURRECCION, JOSEPH COMETA AND CRISEFORO LITERATO, JR., Petitioners, v. On arraignment, all the accused pleaded not guilty.

Comments