AgencyDPFebruary32014

Said losses are alleged to be as follow a the sum of

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: nce, and that through his fault or negligence the said plaintiff was subjected to losses. Said losses are alleged to be as follow: (a) the sum of P611.39 which he paid to Justo Trinidad as principal, interest, and costs under the judgment entered in the above­cited case; (b) the sum of 1,500, for which Genaro Heredia had contracted to sell the four parcels of land which reverted to Justo Trinidad; (c) the sum of P88, paid to the clerk of the Supreme Court and to the printing establishment "La Enriqueta" by reason of the appeal to which the 1 complaint refer" TC: That the court in its decision of the 6th of March, 1907, "found that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover anything under his complaint nor the defendant for his counterclaim and that neither parties should recover costs." by a new amendatory judgment of the 21st of the same month and year, entered on motion of the defendant, the court modified its former decision in the sense that the defendant was declared to be entitled to the sum of P150, by reason of his counterclaim. ISSUE: WON Atty. Ramon Salinas as lawyer for the plaintiff Trinidad in the above­mentioned case, did not perform his duties, as he should have done, with all due diligence, and that through his fault or negligence the said Trinidad was subjected to losses. HELD/SC: Lower Court’s judgement affirmed. Atty. Salinas was negligent in the performance of his duties. Under the conclusions of the judgment appealed from if because the bill of exceptions was presented on the 13th of June, 1906 eight days after the date of the notice of its presentation which was given on the 5th of said month, the court considered that "it could hardly be said that the non­admission of such bill of exceptions was a result that ought to have been foreseen by an attorney of reasonable knowledge and capabilities exercising ordinary care," such a conclusion is notoriously erroneous, inasmuch as the adverse judgment having been excepted to and motion for a new trial having been made on the 28th of April, and denied on the 5th of May, according to the facts stated above, from the latter date to the 5th of June, a period of thirty days, no action was taken by the defendant, and...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online