This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-07-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is doctrinal that the fraud that will justify annulment of a judgment is extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in litigation committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party is prevented from fully exhibiting his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, such as by keeping him away from court, by giving him a false promise of a compromise, or where the defendant never had the knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff, or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat. These instances show that there was never a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case so that the judgment should be annulled and the case set for a new and fair hearing.[13] | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In any case, petitioners were not entirely faultless. As we have consistently reiterated, it is the duty of party-litigants to be in contact with their counsel from time to time in order to be informed of the progress of their case. Petitioners should have maintained contact with their former counsel and informed themselves of the progress of their case, thereby exercising that standard of care which an ordinarily prudent man devotes to his business.[14] Clearly, petitioners manifestly failed to display the expected degree of concern or attention to their case. Nor have they shown any compelling reason for this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to review their case. | |||||
|
2006-06-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The petitioner manifestly failed to display in the proceedings below the expected degree of concern or attention to his case. In Leonardo v. S.T. Best, Inc.,[18] we reiterated that: As clients, petitioners should have maintained contact with their counsel from time to time, and informed themselves of the progress of their case, thereby exercising that standard of care "which an ordinarily prudent man bestows upon his business." Even in the absence of the petitioner's negligence, the rule in this jurisdiction is that a party is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. In the earlier case of Tesoro v. Court of Appeals,[19] we emphasized - It has been repeatedly enunciated that "a client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had he proceeded differently. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. If such grounds were to be admitted as reasons for reopening cases, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who could allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned." Thus, with the ordinary remedy of appeal lost through the petitioner's own fault, we affirm that no reversible error was committed in the dismissal of the petition by the appellate court. | |||||
|
2004-06-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, the consistent failure of the petitioners or their counsel to appear at the pre-trial justify the court a quo's order directing the respondents to present their evidence ex parte. Under Section 5,[16] Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, failure on the part of the defendants, the petitioners in this case, and their counsel to appear at the pre-trial, shall be a cause to allow the respondents, as the plaintiffs, to present their evidence ex parte, and the Court to render judgment on the basis thereof.[17] As correctly put by the CA, "assuming that the respondent judge was strict in the enforcement of the rules, that is an ocean away from being gravely abusive of his discretion."[18] | |||||