This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Unfortunately for ROMAGO, a petition for relief from judgment, being an equitable remedy, is allowed only in exceptional cases, as when there is no other available or adequate remedy. Under Rule 38[42] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it may be availed of only after a judgment, final order or other proceedings were taken against petitioner in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.[43] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the fairly recent case of Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[31] this Court struck down the argument that the aggrieved parties were denied due process of law, because they had the opportunity to be heard at some point in the proceedings, even if they had not been able to fully exhaust all the remedies available by reason of their counsel's negligence or mistake. Thus, in Dela Cruz v. Andres,[32] the Court held that "where a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the essence of due process." In the earlier case of Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[33] the decision of the trial court attained finality by reason of counsel's failure to timely file a notice of appeal, and such negligence did not deprive petitioner of due process of law. As elucidated by the Court in said case, to wit:"The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. x x x. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process." | |||||