This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-08-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| There is extrinsic fraud when a party is prevented from having trial or from presenting all of his case to the court.[60] In Macabingkil v. People's Homesite and Housing Corporation,[61] this Court, citing Justice Miller in the case of U.S. v. Throckmorton, 25 L. ed. 93, 95, stated:But there is an admitted exception to this general rule, in cases where, by reason of something done by the successful party to a suit, there was, in fact, no adversary trial or decision of the issue in the case. Where the successful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise, or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the act of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently without an authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client's interest to the other side these, and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul a former judgment or decree, and open the case for a new and fair hearing See, Wells, Res Adjudicata, sec. 499; Pearce v. Olney, 20 Conn., 544; Wierich v. De Zoya, 7 Ill., (2 Gilm.) 385; Kent v. Richards, 3 Md. Ch., 396; Smith v. Lowry, 1 Johns. Ch., 320; De Louis v. Meek, 2 Green (Iowa), 55. | |||||
|
2001-08-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Due process, in essence, is simply an opportunity to be heard.[19] It cannot be denied that in the case at bar, a hearing on the prayer for injunction was held on July 9, 1998. Both parties were represented at the said hearing, and the Bitanga group presented its arguments in opposition to the injunctive relief. This alone negates any proposition that the Bitanga group was denied due process. | |||||