This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2016-01-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The situation in this case is almost similar to that in the recent case of Lasala v. National Food Authority.[42] In said case, the Court allowed the petition for relief from judgment filed by the National Food Authority due to its counsels' repeated acts of negligence and employment of extrinsic fraud to its detriment. The Court wrote: Extrinsic fraud in a petition for annulment refers to "any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in litigation committed outside of the trial of the case, where the defeated party is prevented from fully exhibiting his side 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 an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat." | |||||