This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2016-01-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Thus, though the Court is cognizant of the general rule, in cases of gross and palpable negligence of counsel and of extrinsic fraud, the Court must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby.[38] For negligence to be excusable, it must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against,[39] and for the extrinsic fraud to justify a petition for relief from judgment, it must be that fraud which the prevailing party caused to prevent the losing party from being heard on his action or defense. Such fraud concerns not the judgment itself but the manner in which it was obtained.[40] Guided by these pronouncements, the Court in the case of Apex Mining, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals[41] wrote: If the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great and the error committed as a result thereof is so serious that the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in court, the litigation may be reopened to give the client another chance to present his case. Similarly, when an unsuccessful party has been prevented from fully and fairly presenting his case as a result of his lawyer's professional delinquency or infidelity the litigation may be reopened to allow the party to present his side. Where counsel is guilty of gross ignorance, negligence and dereliction of duty, which resulted in the clients being held liable for damages in a damage suit, the client is deprived of his day in court and the judgment may be set aside on such ground. | |||||