This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-11-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Intrinsic fraud refers to acts of a party at a trial which prevented a fair and just determination of the case, and which could have been litigated and determined at the trial or adjudication of the case.[25] In contrast, extrinsic or collateral fraud is a trickery practiced by the prevailing party upon the unsuccessful party, which prevents the latter from fully proving his case; it affects not the judgment itself but the manner in which said judgment is obtained.[26] Fraud is regarded as extrinsic "where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court."[27] | |||||
|
2012-09-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud.[8] Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions.[9] The Court has thus instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing in Section 1[10] of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the petitioner should show that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.[11] A petition for annulment that ignores or disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper. | |||||
|
2009-09-29 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In People v. Bitanga,[13] the Court explained that the remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be availed of in criminal cases, thus -- | |||||
|
2009-09-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. The fraud or deceit cannot be of the losing party's own doing, nor must such party contribute to it. The extrinsic fraud must be employed against it by the adverse party, who, because of some trick, artifice, or device, naturally prevails in the suit.[52] It affects not the judgment itself but the manner in which the said judgment is obtained.[53] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In People of the Philippines and Bricio Ygana v. Rafael Bitanga,[26] an exception to the foregoing rule is enunciated, and that is when the negligence of counsel had been so egregious that it prejudiced his client's interest and denied him his day in court. For this exception to apply, however, the gross negligence of counsel should not be accompanied by his client's own negligence or malice.[27] Clients have the duty to be vigilant of their interests by keeping themselves up to date on the status of their case.[28] Failing in this duty, they suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against them. | |||||