The Supreme Court has definitively ruled that extrinsic fraud, as a ground for annulling a judgment, must originate from the opposing party and prevent the petitioner from fully presenting their case in court. This means negligence or mistakes committed by a party’s own lawyer do not constitute extrinsic fraud and cannot be used as grounds for annulling a court’s decision. The responsibility lies with the litigant to monitor their case and not solely rely on their counsel. This case underscores the importance of diligence and vigilance in protecting one’s interests in legal proceedings.

When Inaction Costs More Than Legal Fees: Understanding Extrinsic Fraud

This case revolves around Pinausukan Seafood House, Roxas Boulevard, Inc. and its legal battle against Far East Bank & Trust Company (now Bank of the Philippine Islands) concerning a property foreclosure. Pinausukan sought to annul a previous court order dismissing their case against the bank, claiming their lawyer’s negligence amounted to extrinsic fraud. The central legal question is whether the lawyer’s alleged failure to keep track of the case and inform the client constitutes extrinsic fraud, justifying the annulment of the judgment.

The roots of the dispute trace back to 1993 when Bonier de Guzman, then President of Pinausukan, secured loans from Far East Bank and executed four real estate mortgages on the corporation’s property. When Pinausukan failed to meet its financial obligations, the bank initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings in 2001. In response, Pinausukan filed a lawsuit to annul the mortgages, alleging that Bonier had acted in his personal capacity without the corporation’s consent. This case, assigned to Branch 108 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), sought to prevent the foreclosure and public auction of the property.

During the trial, Pinausukan presented Zsae Carrie de Guzman as their initial witness. However, subsequent hearings were repeatedly postponed, and in August 2002, the parties indicated they were attempting to settle the dispute. Despite this, neither party’s counsel appeared at the scheduled hearing on September 5, 2002, leading the RTC to dismiss the case on October 31, 2002, due to failure to prosecute. This dismissal became final, and Pinausukan later claimed they were unaware of the order until a notice of extrajudicial sale was issued in June 2003.

Pinausukan alleged they were surprised by these events, claiming their lawyer, Atty. Michael Dale Villaflor, failed to inform them of the dismissal order. This prompted them to file a petition for annulment in the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that Atty. Villaflor’s gross negligence constituted extrinsic fraud. They asserted that the lawyer’s failure to keep track of the case deprived them of their right to present evidence, warranting the annulment of the RTC order. Pinausukan supported their claim with the following statement:

6. Inquiry from counsel, Atty. Michael Dale T. Villaflor disclosed that although the Registry Return Receipt indicated that he received the Order on November 28, 2002, according to him, as of said date, he no longer holds office at 12th Floor, Ever Gotesco Corporate Center, 1958 C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila but has transferred to Vecation (sic) Club, Inc., with office address 10th Floor Rufino Tower, Ayala Avenue, Makati City. Petitioner was never notified of the change of office and address of its attorney.

7. The palpable negligence of counsel to keep track of the case he was handling constituted professional misconduct amounting to extrinsic fraud properly warranting the annulment of the Order dated October 31, 2003 as petitioner was unduly deprived of its right to present evidence in Civil Case No. 01-0300 through no fault of its own.

The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed Pinausukan’s petition for annulment, citing the failure to attach affidavits of witnesses to support the claim of extrinsic fraud, as required by Section 4, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. The CA emphasized that a verified petition attesting to the correctness of its allegations does not substitute for the required affidavits. This decision prompted Pinausukan to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the affidavit requirement should be relaxed and that their lawyer’s negligence should not prevent them from obtaining relief.

The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing the strict requirements for an action to annul a judgment or final order. The Court delved into the history and nature of this remedy, referencing the landmark case of Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca. It highlighted that annulment of judgment is an exceptional remedy available only when other remedies are unavailable and when the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud.

The Supreme Court emphasized that Rule 47 of the Rules of Court strictly governs actions for annulment, prescribing specific requirements. One critical requirement is that the petition must include affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause of action. The Court underscored that a verified petition does not suffice, as verification only confirms the truthfulness of the allegations, whereas affidavits provide specific evidence from witnesses to substantiate the claim of extrinsic fraud.

The Court also clarified the limited scope of fraud that warrants annulment of judgment. The Supreme Court in Cosmic Lumber Corporation v. Court of Appeals, defined extrinsic fraud as:

where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had 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 and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment and open the case for a new and fair hearing.

The Court emphasized that the key is whether the prevailing party’s fraudulent actions prevented the petitioner from having their day in court. In contrast, intrinsic fraud, such as falsification or false testimony, does not justify annulment because these issues could have been addressed during the trial. In Pinausukan’s case, the Court found that the alleged negligence of their lawyer did not constitute extrinsic fraud because it did not originate from the opposing party, the bank. The failure to be aware of the case’s developments was deemed Pinausukan’s own responsibility, as they should have maintained contact with their counsel to protect their interests.

The Supreme Court has underscored that the neglect of counsel, even if proven, does not automatically equate to extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud requires an act of the opposing party that prevents the petitioner from fully presenting their case. Thus, a party cannot seek annulment based on the shortcomings of their own legal representation. The Supreme Court firmly stated that the responsibility of monitoring a case lies with the litigant. It is not sufficient to solely rely on counsel; rather, litigants must actively engage and stay informed about the progress of their case to safeguard their interests.

FAQs

What is extrinsic fraud?	Extrinsic fraud involves acts by the prevailing party that prevent the losing party from fully presenting their case in court, such as keeping them away from court or concealing the lawsuit. It must be the action of the adverse party.
What is the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud?	Extrinsic fraud prevents a party from having a fair trial, while intrinsic fraud occurs during the trial itself and could have been addressed through proper preparation and cross-examination. Forgery is considered intrinsic fraud.
Why did the Court of Appeals dismiss Pinausukan’s petition?	The CA dismissed the petition because Pinausukan failed to attach affidavits of witnesses supporting their claim of extrinsic fraud, as required by Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. It was also because the Court deemed the attorney’s negligence to be the fault of Pinausukan’s attorney and not the adverse party.
Can a lawyer’s negligence be considered extrinsic fraud?	Generally, no. The Court held that negligence of counsel does not constitute extrinsic fraud unless it is part of a scheme by the opposing party to prevent the litigant from having their day in court.
What is the responsibility of a litigant in a court case?	A litigant has the responsibility to stay informed about the developments in their case and cannot solely rely on their lawyer. They must actively monitor the progress of the case to protect their interests.
What is the remedy when a lawyer is negligent?	The client’s remedy is to take action against their own lawyer for damages resulting from the negligence, rather than seeking to annul the judgment. The remedy is to seek damages from the lawyer.
What is the time limit for filing an action for annulment based on extrinsic fraud?	The action must be filed within four years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud, according to Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. There are instances, too, that filing must be brought before it is barred by laches or estoppel.
What must be included in a petition for annulment of judgment?	The petition must be verified, allege the facts and law relied upon, and include a certified true copy of the judgment, affidavits of witnesses, and a sworn certification that there are no other pending actions involving the same issues. These are mandated by the Rules of Court.

In conclusion, this case reinforces the stringent requirements for annulling judgments based on extrinsic fraud. It underscores the importance of active engagement by litigants in their legal cases and clarifies that the negligence of one’s own counsel does not typically constitute grounds for annulment. The ruling serves as a reminder that parties must diligently monitor their cases and ensure their lawyers are acting in their best interests.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE, ROXAS BOULEVARD, INC. VS. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND HECTOR IL. GALURA, G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014