Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 204 views

    CASE #113 Baclaran Marketing Corp. vs. Fernando C. Nieva and Mamerto Sibulo, Jr. G.R. No. 189881, April 19, 2017 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Harlene
    BMC filed a petition for annulment of a judgment against it, arguing extrinsic fraud by its former counsel who failed to inform it of an appeal. The Court denied the petition, finding that BMC did not meet the requirements for annulment: 1) BMC could have appealed but did not due to its own counsel's negligence, which binds the client, and 2) BMC did not prove extrinsic fraud by its opponent or deprivation of due process. Extrinsic fraud refers to acts preventing a party from presenting its case, not an attorney's negligence. Mere allegations of gross negligence are insufficient for annulment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CASE #113 Baclaran Marketing Corp. vs. Fernando C. Nieva and Mamerto Sibulo, Jr. G.R. No. 189881, April 19, 2017 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Harlene
    204 views2 pages
    BMC filed a petition for annulment of a judgment against it, arguing extrinsic fraud by its former counsel who failed to inform it of an appeal. The Court denied the petition, finding that BMC did not meet the requirements for annulment: 1) BMC could have appealed but did not due to its own counsel's negligence, which binds the client, and 2) BMC did not prove extrinsic fraud by its opponent or deprivation of due process. Extrinsic fraud refers to acts preventing a party from presenting its case, not an attorney's negligence. Mere allegations of gross negligence are insufficient for annulment.

    Original Title

    113. 294 2017

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    BMC filed a petition for annulment of a judgment against it, arguing extrinsic fraud by its former counsel who failed to inform it of an appeal. The Court denied the petition, finding that BMC did not meet the requirements for annulment: 1) BMC could have appealed but did not due to its own counsel's negligence, which binds the client, and 2) BMC did not prove extrinsic fraud by its opponent or deprivation of due process. Extrinsic fraud refers to acts preventing a party from presenting its case, not an attorney's negligence. Mere allegations of gross negligence are insufficient for annulment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    204 views2 pages

    CASE #113 Baclaran Marketing Corp. vs. Fernando C. Nieva and Mamerto Sibulo, Jr. G.R. No. 189881, April 19, 2017 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Harlene
    BMC filed a petition for annulment of a judgment against it, arguing extrinsic fraud by its former counsel who failed to inform it of an appeal. The Court denied the petition, finding that BMC did not meet the requirements for annulment: 1) BMC could have appealed but did not due to its own counsel's negligence, which binds the client, and 2) BMC did not prove extrinsic fraud by its opponent or deprivation of due process. Extrinsic fraud refers to acts preventing a party from presenting its case, not an attorney's negligence. Mere allegations of gross negligence are insufficient for annulment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE #113

    BACLARAN MARKETING CORP. vs. FERNANDO C. NIEVA and MAMERTO SIBULO, JR.
    G.R. No. 189881, April 19, 2017

    FACTS:
    Petitioner BMC is one of the defendants in a civil case for damages arising from a vehicular
    collision between a 10-wheeler truck owned by BMC and driven by its employee Ricardo Mendoza,
    and a car owned and driven by Mamerto Sibulo, Jr.. The Antipolo Court ruled in favor of BMC and
    Mendoza, but was reversed on appeal to CA, thereby awarding Sibulo damages in the total amount
    of ₱765,159.55. Writ of Execution was issued against the real properties owned by BMC, and
    Fernando C. Nieva emerged as the highest bidder in the auction sale.
    In view of the Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate issued against it, BMC filed a Petition
    for Annulment of Judgment before the CA. BMC alleged that its counsel, Atty. lsagani B. Rizon,
    committed acts of gross and inexcusable negligence constituting extrinsic fraud, which deprived it of
    due process and an opportunity to present its side. BMC averred that it did not know that Sibulo
    appealed the 1990 Decision of the Antipolo Court to the CA. It claimed that Atty. Rizon assured BMC
    that the 1990 Decision ended the controversy. Had BMC knew of the appeal, it could have opposed
    the proceedings or engaged the services of new counsel. BMC invokes extrinsic fraud and lack of
    due process as grounds for its petition for annulment of judgment. Nieva and Sibulo assert that BMC
    was not deprived of due process, as the records of the CA show that BMC was furnished with a copy
    of the decision of the CA and a copy of the entry of judgment. The CA denied BMC's petition for
    annulment of judgment.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the remedy of annulment of judgment (Rule 47, ROC) is available to BMC.

    HELD:
    No. Rule 47 of the Rules of Court governs actions for the annulment of final judgments, orders,
    or resolutions of regional trial courts in civil actions. It is a recourse equitable in character, allowed
    only in exceptional cases where there is no available or other adequate remedy.  The remedy is
    available only when: (1) the petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial,
    appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies through no fault of the petitioner; (2) The
    grounds for the action of annulment of judgment are limited to either extrinsic fraud or lack of
    jurisdiction; (3) The action must be filed within four years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud; and
    if based on lack of jurisdiction, must be brought before it is barred by laches or estoppel; and (4) The
    petition must be verified, and should allege with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for
    annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or
    defense, as the case may be.
    BMC's petition for annulment of judgment fails to meet the first and second requisites. Extrinsic
    fraud refers to a fraud (1) committed to the unsuccessful party by his opponent preventing him from
    fully exhibiting his case by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or (2)
    where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the
    plaintiff; or (3) when an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat. BMC neither
    alleged nor proved that the gross negligence of its former counsel was done in connivance with Nieva
    or Sibulo.  It is well-settled that the negligence of the counsel binds the client, except in cases where
    the gross negligence of the lawyer deprived his client of due process of law. However, mere
    allegation of gross negligence does not suffice.

    You might also like