This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-02-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| But the extrinsic fraud that will justify a petition for relief from judgment is 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.[25] For example, the petition of a defending party would be justified where the plaintiff deliberately caused with the process server's connivance the service of summons on defendant at the wrong address and thus succeeded in getting a judgment by default against him. | |||||
|
2011-02-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In addition, it is a rule of equity and applied not to penalize neglect or sleeping on one's rights, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly unfair situation.[11] There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances.[12] Ultimately, the question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and, being an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations.[13] It cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud and injustice.[14] It is the better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to be so, a manifest wrong or injustice would result.[15] | |||||