FIRST DIVISION
|
ROLANDO
JUANI, as Administrator for the estate of the deceased Bienvenido
Juani, Petitioner, - versus - ROBERTO G.
ALARCON,
Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 166849 Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J. Chairperson, YNARES-SANTIAGO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR., and CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ. Promulgated: |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, as
amended, assailing the
Accordingly, We find no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondent in issuing the assailed orders.
FOREGOING
CONSIDERED, the petition is DENIED and
the assailed orders, AFFIRMED.[3]
On 17 June 1985, Roberto G. Alarcon
filed a complaint[4]
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 22, against Bienvenido
Juani, Edgardo Sulit and Virginia Baluyot for
the annulment of the deed of sale of a 2,500 square meter-portion of a parcel
of land situated at Baliuag, Bulacan
(subject property), executed on 27 March 1985 between his father and
attorney-in-fact, Tomas L. Alarcon, and the
defendants.
In his complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 8245-M, complainant alleged that he is the registered owner of a parcel of land
covered by
The signature of Tomas Alarcon in
the aforesaid deed was, however,
forged and the consideration for the purported sale was grossly insufficient or
inadequate. It was further alleged that
at the time the sale was entered into, the SPA from which Tomas Alarcon derived his authority to sell, was already revoked.
Complainant therefore prayed for the
annulment of the deed of sale and, consequently, for the cancellation of the TCTs issued in the name of the defendants and the reconveyance of the subject property plus damages.[8]
In their
answer,[9]
defendants Bienvenido Juani
and Baluyot countered that Juani
had been the tiller-occupant of the entire land covered by TCT No. 279065 for
almost 10 years now. Tomas Alarcon, in an effort to regain possession of the said
parcel of land, allegedly enticed Juani to give up
his right over the land as a tiller-possessor in exchange for ownership of
2,500 square meter-portion of the whole area. After much contemplation, Bienvenido
Juani acceded to the prodding of Tomas Alarcon and signed an agreement with him, denominated as "Kasunduan ng Pagbibili,"[10]
where it was provided that Tomas Alarcon had an SPA to sell the subject property to him.
Subsequently, a Final Deed of Sale designated as “Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan Ng Bahagi Ng Lupa,”[11]
was executed on
After all the issues were joined, the trial court set the
case for pre-trial conference which was conducted on
During the pre-trial of this case on
1. That the document of sale or “Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Tuluyan ng Bahagi Ng Lupa” (Annex “C” of the complaint) purportedly executed by Tomas L. Alarcon, as attorney-in-fact of his son Roberto Alarcon (the plaintiff herein), on March 27, 1985 over some portions of the land in question in favor of the defendants Bienvenido Juani (1,000 sq.m), Edgardo Sulit (500 sq.m.) and Virginia Baluyot (1,000 sq.m) or a total of 2,500 sq.m is a forged document (which is subject of a pending criminal case);
2.
That it is that forged document of sale which was registered with the Register of Deeds of Malolos, Bulacan on
3. That after the registration of the forged document, the defendants Juani, Sulit and Baluyot were issued Transfer Certficates of Title Nos. T-294353, (Annex “E” of the complaint), T-294354 (Annex “F” of the complaint) and T-294355 (Annex “G” of the complaint) respectively.
On the basis of the foregoing facts admitted by all the parties, it is very clear that the aforesaid document of sale or “Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan Ng Bahagi Ng Lupa,” purportedly executed on March 27, 1985 is void ab initio for being a forgery. And, therefore, the three separate titles (TCT Nos. T-294353, T-294354 and T-294355) issued respectively in favor of defendants Juani, Sulit and Baluyot on the basis of that forged document are null and void and should be cancelled.
In view therefore of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. Declaring the
document of sale or "Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Tuluyan Ng Bahagi Ng Lupa" purportedly
executed on
2. Declaring Transfer Certificates of Titles Nos. T-294353, T-294354 and T-294355 issued respectively in the names of Bienvenido Juani, Edgardo Sulit and Virginia Baluyot null and void; and
3. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Malolos, Bulacan to cancel the aforesaid certificates of titles x x x.
Subsequent to the conduct of pre-trial and the rendition of
the Partial Decision, the trial court, on
During the pre-trial of this case conducted on
I. Issue of Law
1.
Whether or not the deed of sale of a portion (2,500 sq.m.)
of a parcel of land (10,000 sq.m.) belonging to
plaintiff Roberto G. Alarcon (covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-279065) executed by third-party defendant, Tomas L. Alarcon, as attorney-in-fact of the plaintiff, in favor of
defendant Bienvenido Juani
on
II. Issues of Fact
1. Whether or not third-party defendant Tomas L. Alarcon had still authority to act for and in behalf of plaintiff Roberto Alarcon when the former executed the aforesaid deed of sale in favor of defendant Bienvenido Juani; and
2.
Whether or not Tomas Alarcon had complete control of
his mental faculties when he executed the said deed of sale on
With the statement of the foregoing issues, the pre-trial is now deemed closed and terminated. The parties are hereby given fifteen (15) days from receipt of the pre-trial order within which to have it set aside or modified to prevent manifest injustice x x x.
On
Subsequently, in the hearing
conducted on
At today's scheduled hearing for the initial reception of plaintiff's evidence, Atty. Sesinando Manuel, Jr. counsel for the plaintiff, reiterated his previous motion to have this case dismiss (sic) with respect to the defendants who are willing to dismiss their counterclaim. Atty. Rosalino Barican, counsel for defendant Bienvenido Juani manifested that he has no objection to have his counterclaim dismissed without prejudice, to effect the partial decision which is with his conformity. The complaint against Bienvenido Juani and his counterclaim is hereby DISMISSED. The Court will proceed with this case only with respect to defendants Virginia Baluyot and Edgardo Sulit x x x.
The partial decision which had become final and executory could not, however, be executed because the
defendants allegedly refused to surrender their respective Owner's Duplicate of
TCTs issued to them by the Register of Deeds.
In the interregnum, the complaint
against Sulit was ordered dismissed by the lower
court on
Due to his desire to
retain possession of the subject property, defendant Bienvenido
Juani, on
The Court of Appeals, on 16 October 1996, handed down a
Decision setting aside the partial judgment entered by the lower court and its
Orders dated 24 January 1991 and 19 August 1991, respectively, dismissing the complaint
against Bienvenido Juani
and his counterclaim against Tomas Alarcon and
granting the motion for the execution of the partial decision. In its Decision[16]
penned in Filipino, the appellate
court found that extrinsic fraud was attendant in the trial court’s proceedings
for defendant Bienvenido Juani,
who was unlettered and was not properly apprised of the court’s procedures and
the effects of the admissions he made and the course of actions taken. After nullifying the Partial Decision, the
Court of Appeals directed that the case be remanded to the court of origin for
further proceedings. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
DAHIL DITO, batay sa masusing
pagaaral sa mga tala at patibay
na nasa hukumang
ito ay ipinapasiya na ang petisyon
ay pinapahintulot at pinapayagan
at tuloy na inuutos na pawalang
saysay ang parsyal sa desisyon
na syang pinagmumulan ng lahat ng kaguluhang
ito at gayon din ang “order” ng hukuman sa ibaba
na may petsa Enero 24, 1991 kasali na ang wirt
of execution” na may petsa Agosto 19, 1991 upang mapawalang bisa ang bunga ng
kahoy na may lason.
Gayon din, iniuutos sa hukumang pinagmulan
ng asunto na kailangang magkaroon
ng panibagong paglilitis ang kaso ni Bienvenido
Juani laban kay Tomas Alarcon.
IPINAG-UUTOS.
Thus, Roberto Alarcon, the
complainant before the court a quo,
appealed this Court of Appeals’ decision through a Petition for Review on Certiorari[17]
before this Court docketed as G.R. No. 126802, Roberto G. Alarcon v. The Court of Appeals
and Bienvenido Juani, claiming that the appellate court
gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction in
setting aside the partial decision. He
stressed that the respondent court should have not taken cognizance of the case
in the first place considering that the period to institute the action for
annulment of judgment had long prescribed.
On 28 January 2000, this Court, in G.R. No. 126802,[18] laid to rest the controversy and settled the issues that cloud the validity of the Partial Decision of the trial court by reversing the appellate court and reinstating the said partial decision. This Court elaborated that upon perusal of the documentary evidence and the records of the case including the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN), it was shown that defendants were properly represented in all stages of the proceedings and the conclusion, therefore, by the respondent court that extrinsic fraud attended the case was an utter mistake. Additionally, this Court observed, that the action for annulment of judgment was instituted by the defendant Bienvenido Juani beyond the four (4) year prescriptive period or nine (9) years after its rendition. For these reasons, this Court, upheld the validity of the partial judgment, the dispositive portion of its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is
GRANTED. The decision of the Court of
Appeals is REVERSED and the Partial Decision rendered by the Regional Trial
Court on
For failure of defendant Bienvenido
Juani to file a Motion for Reconsideration, this
Decision has become final and executory on
Consequently, on
Contrary to movant’s contention
that there are still other issues to be resolved in the present case, it
appears that after the rendition of the partial judgment on August 1, 1986, the
complaints against all three defendants as well as the latter’s counterclaim
against the plaintiff were subsequently dismissed by agreement of the parties
with the assistance of their respective counsels. In fact, this Court noted in its Order dated
As borne by the records, plaintiff, Roberto G. Alarcon filed a complaint for annulment of sale and title with
damages against defendants Bienvenido Juani, Edgardo Sulit and Virginia Baluyot on
x x x x
On
the basis of the foregoing facts admitted by all the parties, it is very clear
that the aforesaid document of sale or “Kasulatan ng Bilihang
Tuluyan Ng Bahagi Ng Lupa,” purpotedly executed on
The complaint against defendant Edgardo Sulit as well as the
latter’s counterclaim against the plaintiff was ordered dismissed on
Incidentally, on
From the foregoing, it is very clear that there are no
more issues to be resolved in the present case considering the partial decision
of this court dated August 1, 1986 had already become final and executory and considering further that the orders of the
court dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against all the defendants as well as the
latter’s counterclaim against the plaintiff had long become final and executory. It is
also significant to note that the partial decision of this court was already
implemented as shown by the sheriff’s report dated
In light of all the foregoing, the court is of the view that the continuance of the hearing in the present case is improper. The reason for that is that, every litigation must come to an end such that once a party’s right has been adjudicated in a valid judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try. As the prevailing party, plaintiff should not be harassed by subsequent suits.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the motion to set the present case for hearing filed by the administrator of Bienvenido Juani is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
Unsatisfied with the Resolution by the trial court, defendant
Bienvenido Juani filed a
Motion for Reconsideration[21]
which was likewise dismissed by the same court in its Resolution[22]
dated 11 November 2002 for being a mere reiteration of its previous motion.
In the meantime, defendant Bienvenido Juani died and, in accordance with Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, as amended, Rolando Juani was appointed as executor or administrator of the estate of the deceased.
Rolando Juani, thereafter, filed a Petition for Certiorari[23] on 7 January 2003 before the Court Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74750, Rolando Juani, as Administrator for the estate for the deceased Bienvenido Juani v. Honorable Candido R. Belmonte in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 22 and Roberto Alarcon, assailing the Resolutions dated 16 July 2002 and 11 November 2002 issued by the trial court.
Rolando Juani argued that
the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it did not allow the case to
be set for hearing. Noteworthy, that in the Pre-Trial Order dated
Elaborating, Rolando Juani
explained that there are two separate and distinct Deeds of Sale - the “Kasunduan,” dated
Moreover, the Pre-Trial Order was referring to “Kasunduan” dated
Lastly, Rolando Juani claimed that Atty. Rosalino Barican, erstwhile counsel of the late Bienvenido Juani, was negligent in assenting to the dismissal of the counterclaim against the complainant and such negligent act of the lawyer is not binding on the client.
On
In refusing to set the case for hearing, We find that [RTC Judge] to have merely heeded the injunction that “Every litigation must come to an end, otherwise, it would become even more intolerable than the wrong and injustice it is designed to correct.”
Anent to [Bienvenido Juani’s] argument that he is not bound by his former counsel’s gross negligence in acceding to the dismissal of his counterclaim, suffice it is to say that the Supreme Court in a long line of decision has uniformly ruled that the negligence or mistake of the counsel binds the client, thus:
“Generally, negligence of the counsel binds the client.”
“A client is bound by his counsel’s mistake and negligence.”
“A client is bound by the conduct negligence and mistakes of his counsel”
“The rule is that a client is bound by the acts and mistakes of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique.”
Accordingly, we find no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction on the part of public respondent in issuing the assailed orders.
FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the petition is denied and the assailed orders, AFFIRMED.
Aggrieved by the decision, Rolando Juani filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof but the
same was also denied by the appellate court in a Resolution[25]
dated
Consequently, Rolando Juani filed
this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari[26] on
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A NEED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING OF THE PRESENT CASE IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE REMAINING ISSUES NOT COVERED BY THE PARTIAL DECISION YET SUBSEQUENTLY INCLUDED IN THE PRE-TRIAL ORDER DATED 26 SEPTEMBER 1986?
II.
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS BOUND BY HIS FORMER COUNSEL’S NEGLIGENCE?
As to the
first issue, we rule in the negative.
While it is
true that the Partial Decision[27]
dated
Noteworthy
that in the Order[29]
of the trial court dated
At this
point, Civil Case No. 8245-M was already terminated. In fact, the trial court noted
in its Order dated
Execution
of the judgment should have followed thereafter. However, defendant Bienvenido Juani together with
the two other defendants, allegedly refused to surrender their respective
Owner’s Duplicate of TCTs issued to them by the
Register of Deeds, hence, no valid execution could be effected.[32]
Ten
years after the said Orders of dismissal became final and executory
and fifteen years after the issuance of the Pre-Trial Order, Bienvenido Juani, in an apparent
stance not to concede to the outcome of the litigation, questioned the said
Orders, thus, creating a new issue, which once again reached all the way up to
this Court.
Let it be
recalled that this case was inactive for almost ten years after the rendition
of the partial judgment and finality of the Orders dismissing the case against
all the parties. It was only upon the
belated filing before the Court of Appeals of the Petition for Relief from
Judgment in 1995, nine years after the rendition of the assailed decision, that
the action was once again resuscitated. This
Court, in G.R. No. 126802, already settled this issue by upholding the validity
of the partial judgment and dismissing the herein Bienvenido
Juani’s contentions not only for utter lack of merit
but also because it was filed way beyond the prescriptive period.
After the
decision in G.R. No. 126802 became final and executory,
the unyielding Bienvenido Juani
moved to set the case for hearing, which upon denial, created a controversy and
now the subject of the present petition. Bienvenido Juani and his successor-in-interest vigorously asserted
that the deed of sale referred to in the Pre-Trial Order is the “Kasundu-an” dated
21 March 1985 and not the “Kasulatan” dated
27 March 1985, thus, the case should
be set for hearing in order to resolve the validity of the former. Such
assertion, however, holds no water for the case was effectively terminated by
the dismissal of the complaint against the defendants and the counter-claims
against the complainant. It is no longer
material therefore whether the Pre-Trial Order referred to the “Kasundu-an” dated
Clearly,
this is an instance where the due process routine vigorously pursued by Bienvenido Juani and his
successor-in-interest is but a clear-cut afterthought meant to delay the
settlement of an otherwise uncomplicated legal dispute. Aside from clogging court dockets, the
strategy is deplorably a common curse resorted to by losing litigants in the
hope of evading manifest obligations.[33] This Court will ever be vigilant to nip in
the bud any dilatory maneuver calculated to defeat or frustrate the ends of
justice, fair play and the prompt implementation of final and executory judgments.[34]
To
further this ploy intended to delay disposition of Civil Case No. 8245-M and
evade obligation, Bienvenido Juani
asserted that his counsel was negligent in handling the case; he should not
therefore be bound by its outcome. This issue,
however, was already settled a long time ago.
In
G.R. No. 126802,[35] this Court categorically
ruled that Bienvenido Juani
cannot excuse himself from his counsel’s conduct in the proceedings of the
case, but is rather bound thereby. We
specifically ruled in this wise:
Expectedly, ordinary laymen may not be knowledgeable about the intricacies of the law which is the reason why lawyers are retained to make the battle in court fair and square. And when a party retains the services of a lawyer, he is bound by his counsel's decisions regarding the conduct of the case. This is true especially where he does not complain against the manner his counsel handles the case. 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. This was not particularly attendant in the case at bar. (Emphasis supplied.)
The issue having been laid to rest in a decision that had
become final and executory, this Court finds no
compelling reason to disturb the same. Time and time again, this Court has
reiterated that relitigation of issues already
settled merely burdens the courts and the taxpayers, creates uneasiness and
confusion wastes valuable time and energy that could be devoted to worthier
cases.[36]
Furthermore, it
is a well-settled principle in this jurisdiction 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.
Every
counsel has the implied authority to do all acts which are necessary or, at
least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of
his client. And, any act performed by
counsel within the scope of his general and implied authority is, in the eyes
of the law, regarded as the act of the client himself and consequently, the
mistake or negligence of the client’s counsel may result in the rendition of an
unfavorable judgment against him.[37]
To rule otherwise would result to a
situation that every defeated party, in order to salvage his case, would just
have to claim neglect or mistake on the part of his counsel as a ground for
reversing the adverse judgment. There would be no end to litigation if
this were allowed as every shortcoming of counsel could be the subject of
challenge by his client through another counsel who, if he is also found
wanting, would likewise be disowned by the same client through another counsel,
and so on ad infinitum. This
would render court proceedings indefinite, tentative and subject to reopening
at any time by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel.[38]
Admittedly, the
rule thus stated admits of exceptions. Thus, in cases where the counsel’s
mistake is so great and serious that the client is prejudiced and denied his
day in court or when he is guilty of gross negligence resulting in the client’s
deprivation of his property without due process of law, the client is not bound
by his counsel’s mistakes and the case may even be reopened in order to give
the client another chance to present his case.[39]
As this Court has ruled, the instant case does not fall in
any of the exceptions. Bienvenido Juani and his
successor-in-interest could not just conveniently invoke the mistake or
negligence of Bienvenido Juani’s
counsel as a ground for reversing or setting aside a judgment adverse to him,
thereby putting no end to litigation.
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. This doctrine of finality of
judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound
practice. In fact, nothing is more
settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes
immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification
is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or
law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the
court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.[40]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant Petition is DENIED. Costs against the petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
Pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Chief Justice |
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Danilo B. Pine with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Arcagelita Romilla-Lontok, concurring. Rollo, pp. 15-21.
[2]
[3]
[4] CA rollo, pp. 25-29.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Alarcon v. Court of Appeals, 380 Phil. 678 (2000).
[15] CA rollo, p. 60.
[16]
[17] Rollo of G.R. No. 126802, pp. 3-28.
[18] Alarcon v. Court of Appeals, supra note 14.
[19] CA rollo, pp. 109-111.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] Rollo, pp. 15-21.
[25]
[26]
[27] CA rollo, pp. 58-59.
[28]
[29]
[30] Rollo, p. 18.
[31] CA rollo, pp. 20-23.
[32] Alarcon v. Court of Appeals, supra note 14.
[33] Rubenito v. Lagata, G.R. No. 140959,
[34] Cantelang v.
[35] Alarcon v. Court of Appeals, supra note 14 at 688-689.
[36] Luzon
Development Bank v. Conquilla, G.R. No. 163338,
[37] Ragudo v. Fabella Estate Tenants Association, Inc.,
G.R. No. 146823,
[38] Aguila v. Court of First Instance of Batangas, G.R.
No. L-48335,
[39] Ragudo v. Fabella Estate Tenants Association, Inc.,
supra note 37 at 147.
[40] Honoridez v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 153762,