Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HONORATO ESPINOSA v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 182314 2013-11-12	VIRGINIA Y. GOCHAN v. CHARLES MANCAO BERSAMIN, J.
Assuming arguendo that respondent has the personality to be impleaded in Civil Case No. CEB-22825 since it is settled that a person need not be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled,[37] still, he failed to prove with sufficient particularity the allegation that petitioners practiced deceit or employed subterfuge that precluded him to fully and completely present his case to the trial court. Like in other civil cases, the allegation of extrinsic fraud must be fully substantiated by a preponderance of evidence in order to serve as basis for annulling a judgment.[38] Extrinsic fraud has to be definitively established by the claimant as mere allegation does not instantly warrant the annulment of a final judgment.[39] Ei incumbit probotio qui dicit, non qui negat. He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.[40] Unfortunately, respondent failed to discharge the burden.
	GR Nos. 182136-37 2008-11-27	BON-MAR REALTY v. SPS. NICANOR AND ESTHER DE GUZMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The pendency of a case for annulment of the decision in Civil Case No. 67315 cannot affect the character of our disposition in the instant case; unless annulled, the decision in said case stands. It must be borne in mind that annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[6] Having given the parties herein the opportunity to confront each other head on in Civil Case No. 56393, we cannot, on mere unilateral assertions, bordering on contumacious conduct, of obtaining a better resolution devoid of our "erroneous assumptions," see the wisdom of DE GUZMANS' argument that a resolution of the issues could be better had via a petition for annulment of judgment.
	GR NO. 167727 2007-07-30	CRAYONS PROCESSING v. FELIPE PULA TINGA, J.
Before this Court, Crayons is all too willing to stress the neglect in the handling of the case by the former counsel of [Crayons] who represented it before the Labor Arbiter. Yet the general rule is that the client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel, save when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.[23] Espinosa v. Court of Appeals[24] explicates the requisite character of counsel's negligence that would be sufficient to excuse the client from the consequences thereof.
	GR NO. 159222 2007-06-26	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL BITANGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
When the ground invoked is extrinsic fraud, annulment of judgment must be sought within four years from discovery of the fraud, which fact should be alleged and proven.[22] In addition, the particular acts or omissions constituting extrinsic fraud must be clearly established.[23]
	GR NO. 128099 2006-12-20	FELIX CAMITAN v. CA TINGA, J.
Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[19] An action for annulment of judgment is grounded only on two justifications: (1) extrinsic fraud; and (2) lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. The purpose of such action is to have the final and executory judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation.[20]
	GR NO. 144273 2005-10-20	RODOLFO RAMOS v. JUDGE ALFONSO V. COMBONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[8] Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs actions for annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions, and Section 2 thereof explicitly provides only two grounds for annulment of judgment, i.e., extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The underlying reason is traceable to the notion that annulling final judgments goes against the grain of finality of judgment. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[9]
	GR NO. 155236 2005-08-08	DR. TERESITO v. ORBETA TINGA, J.
To be certain, annulment of judgment is not a relief to be granted indiscriminately by the courts. Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[13] Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the only grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.[14] If the action is based on extrinsic fraud, it must be brought within four (4) years from discovery, and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.[15]
	GR No. 155236 2005-07-08	DR. TERESITO V. ORBETA v. PAUL B. SENDIONG TINGA, J.
To be certain, annulment of judgment is not a relief to be granted indiscriminately by the courts. Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[13] Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the only grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.[14] If the action is based on extrinsic fraud, it must be brought within four (4) years from discovery, and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.[15]
	GR NO. 140945 2005-05-16	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. JOSE EVANGELISTA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[19] Jurisprudence and Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court lay down the grounds upon which an action for annulment of judgment may be brought, i.e., (1) extrinsic fraud, and (2) lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process.[20]