1

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G R No !"#$%%& 'p(il 1&) 1*$$ +U'N 'GUI!') petitione() ,s COURT OF FIRST INST'NCE OF -'T'NG'S) -R'NC. I) SPOUSES +U'N .ERN'NDE/ an0 M'GD'!EN' M'!'!U'N) G'VIN' .ERN'NDE/ an0 -ONIF'CIO !IM-O) M'GD'!EN' .ERN'NDE/ an0 -ENITO DIM'CU!'NG'N) E!EUTERIO .ERN'NDE/ an0 !'UR' -RIONES) DEMETRI' .ERN'NDE/ an0 CONR'DO C'STI!!O) an0 'VE!INO) NESTORIO an0 C'RMEN) all su(na1e0 .ERN'NDE/) (espon0ents

CRU/) J.: +uliana Matien2o ha0 t3o husban0s in succession) na1el4) Escolastico 'labast(o an0) afte( his 0eath) Daniel '5uila The petitione( is clai1in5 the 0ispute0 p(ope(t4 as the onl4 su(,i,in5 chil0 of the secon0 1a((ia5e The p(i,ate (espon0ents a(e (esistin5 this clai1 as the chil0(en of Ma(ia 'labast(o) the sole offsp(in5 of the fi(st 1a((ia5e 1 In an ea(lie( action bet3een the1) 0oc6ete0 as Ci,il Case No 1&&7 in the Cou(t of Fi(st Instance of -atan5as) the p(i,ate (espon0ents ha0 sue0 fo( pa(tition an0 0a1a5es a5ainst the he(ein petitione( an0 his 3ife) alle5in5 that so1e p(ope(ties hel0 b4 the1 pe(taine0 to the fi(st 1a((ia5e as +uliana an0 he( secon0 husban0 ha0 not ac8ui(e0 an4thin5 0u(in5 thei( 1a((ia5e +u051ent 3as (en0e(e0 on +anua(4 9) 1*9#) in fa,o( of the plaintiffs afte( the 0efen0ants 3e(e p(eclu0e0 f(o1 p(esentin5 thei( o3n e,i0ence o3in5 to 3hat the4 late( calle0 :the 5(oss ineptitu0e of thei( counsel): 3ho ha0 faile0 to appea( at t3o sche0ule0 hea(in5s 2 ' 1otion fo( (econsi0e(ation an0 a secon0 1otion fo( (econsi0e(ation an0;o( to p(esent thei( e,i0ence 3e(e both 0enie0 b4 the t(ial cou(t On Septe1be( &) 1*9#) the 0efen0ants 3e(e 5i,en an e<tension of t3ent4 0a4s to file thei( (eco(0 on appeal an0 on Septe1be( 7#) 1*9#) anothe( e<tension of fifteen 0a4s 3as 5(ante0 On No,e1be( 71) 1*9#) the t(ial cou(t 0enie0 the 0efen0ants= (eco(0 on appeal an0 appeal bon0 on the 5(oun0 that the 0ecision ha0 al(ea04 beco1e final an0 e<ecuto(4 On 1otion of the plaintiffs) the t(ial cou(t then issue0 a 3(it of e<ecution on Dece1be( 7) 1*9#) a1en0e0 the follo3in5 0a4) pu(suant to 3hich the p(ope(ties hel0 b4 the 0efen0ants 3e(e le,ie0 upon an0 sol0 at public auction to the plaintiffs as the hi5hest bi00e(s 3 The acts of the t(ial cou(t 3e(e 8uestione0 b4 the 0efen0ants in a petition fo( certiorari an0 mandamus 3ith p(eli1ina(4 in>unction) 3hich 3as 0enie0 b4 the Cou(t of 'ppeals So 3as thei( 1otion fo( (econsi0e(ation The 0efen0ants then ca1e to this Cou(t in a petition fo( (e,ie3 b4 certiorari 3hich 3as also 0enie0 'n :a1en0e0: petition 3as consi0e(e0 a 1otion fo( (econsi0e(ation an0 3as li6e3ise 0enie0 On 'u5ust 1?) 1*9?) anothe( 1otion fo( (econsi0e(ation 3as also 0enie0 3ith finalit4) 3ith the 3a(nin5 that no fu(the( 1otions 3oul0 be ente(taine0 4 Nothin5 0aunte0 the 0efen0ants t(ie0 a5ain) this ti1e b4 filin5 on +une $) 1*99) a co1plaint fo( (econ,e4ance of the p(ope(ties ac8ui(e0 b4 the 0efen0ants in the ea(lie( action fo( pa(tition This ne3 co1plaint 3as 0oc6ete0 as Ci,il Case No 197$ in the Cou(t of Fi(st Instance of -atan5as In thei( ans3e() the 0efen0ants alle5e0 res judicataas one of thei( affi(1ati,e 0efenses) a(5uin5 that the co1plaint 3as ba((e0 b4 the p(io( >u051ent in Ci,il Case No 1&&7 'fte( p(eli1ina(4 hea(in5 of this 0efense) the t(ial cou(t consi0e(e0 the ob>ection 3ell"ta6en an0 0is1isse0 the case 5 The petitione( then ca1e to this cou(t to challen5e the o(0e( The petitione( 0oes not se(iousl4 0ispute that (e8uisites of res judicata a(e p(esent) to 3it@ A1B the p(esence of a final fo(1e( >u051entC A7B the cou(t (en0e(in5 the sa1e 1ust ha,e >u(is0iction o,e( the sub>ect 1atte( an0 the pa(tiesC A%B the fo(1e( >u051ent 1ust be on the 1e(itsC an0 A#B the(e 1ust be)

7
bet3een the t3o cases) I0entit4 of pa(ties) I0entit4 of sub>ect 1atte( an0 I0entit4 of causes of action 6 .e sa4s in fact that :he 0oes not see6 to 0o a3a4 3ith the (ule of res judicata but 1e(el4 p(oposes to un0o a 5(a,e an0 se(ious 3(on5 pe(petuate0 in the na1e of >ustice : 7 Dhat he 0oes conten0 in his b(ief is that) as a 1e(e technical 0efense) res judicata sho3e0 not p(e,ail o,e( his (i5ht to substantial >ustice) an0 specificall4 to 0ue p(ocess The petitione( clai1s he 3as 0enie0 this constitutional p(otection 3hen the 0efen0ants 3e(e 0ep(i,e0 of the oppo(tunit4 to sub1it thei( e,i0ence in the sai0 Ci,il Case No 1&&7 an0 late( to appeal the 0ecision of the t(ial cou(t 's a 1atte( of fact) he 3as not 0enie0 that oppo(tunit4) 3hich is p(ecisel4 E an0 onl4 E 3hat 0ue p(ocess 5ua(antees The (eco(0s sho3 that he 0i0 ha,e that oppo(tunit4 to be hea(0 an0 to ha,e the 0ecision (e,ie3e0 but fo(feite0 the (i5ht because of his o3n counsel) 3ho1 he c(itici2e0 as follo3s@ Clea(l4) it 3as th(ou5h the 5(oss ineptitu0e of petitione(=s o(i5inal counsel that he 3as p(eclu0e0 f(o1 p(esentin5 his e,i0ence in Ci,il Case No 1&&7C that he lost his (i5ht to appealC an0 that the Decision in the I0 case beca1e final) e<ecuto(4 an0 e<ecute0 <<< <<< <<< The(e is also no 0ispute that the Decision in Ci,il Case No 1&&7 has al(ea04 beco1e final) e<ecuto(4 an0 e<ecute0) an0 this) all because of the 5(oss ineptitu0e of counsel fo( the 0efen0ants Ahe(ein petitione( an0 his 3ifeB 3ho 0i0 not file the (eco(0 on appeal 3ithin the e<ten0e0 pe(io0 of ti1e 5(ante0 b4 the Cou(t an0 3ho late( on pu(sue0 a 3(on5 (e1e04 befo(e the .ono(able Cou(t of appeals in C' G R No SP"F#?*$ an0 befo(e the .ono(able Sup(e1e Cou(t in G R No !" #%%$$ the(eb4 allo3in5 the pe(io0 fo( a,ailin5 of the (e1e04 of Relief >u051ent >u051ent to lapse 6 Counsel a(e suppose0 to (ep(esent thei( clients b4 ,i(tue of a ,ali0 autho(i2ation f(o1 the latte( an0 act on thei( behalf 3ith bin0in5 effect Pe(sons a(e allo3e0 to p(actice la3 onl4 afte( the4 shall ha,e passe0 the ba( petitions) 3hich 1e(el4 0ete(1ine if the4 ha,e the 1ini1u1 (e8ui(e1ents to en5a5e in the e<e(cise of the le5al p(ofession This is no 5ua(ant4) of cou(se) that the4 3ill 0ischa(5e thei( 0uties 3ith full fi0elit4 to thei( clients o( 3ith full 1aste(4 o( at least app(eciation of the la3 The la3) to be fai() is not (eall4 all that si1pleC the(e a(e pa(ts that a(e (athe( co1plicate0 an0 1a4 challen5e the s6ills of 1an4 la34e(s -4 an0 la(5e) ho3e,e() the p(actice of the la3 shoul0 not p(esent 1uch 0ifficult4 unless b4 so1e unfo(tunate 8ui(6 of fate the la34e( has been allo3e0 to ente( the ba( 0espite his lac6 of p(epa(ation) o() 3hile fa1ilia( 3ith the int(icacies of his ) is ne,e(theless ne5lectful of his 0uties an0 0oes not pa4 p(ope( attention to his 3o(6 In the instant case) the petitione( shoul0 ha,e notice0 the succession of e((o(s co11itte0 b4 his counsel an0 ta6en app(op(iate steps fo( his (eplace1ent befo(e it 3as alto5ethe( too late .e 0i0 not On the cont(a(4) he continue0 to (etain his counsel th(ou5h the se(ies of p(ocee0in5s that all (esulte0 in the (e>ection of his cause) ob,iousl4 th(ou5h such counsel=s :ineptitu0e: an0) let it be a00e0) the clients: fo(bea(ance The petitione(:s (e,e(ses shoul0 ha,e cautione0 hi1 that his la34e( 3as 1ishan0lin5 his case an0 1o,e0 hi1 to see6 the help of othe( counsel) 3hich he 0i0 in the en0 but (athe( ta(0il4 No3 petitione( 3ants us to nullif4 all of the antece0ent p(ocee0in5s an0 (eco5ni2e his ea(lie( clai1s to the 0ispute0 p(ope(t4 on the >ustification that his counsel 3as 5(ossl4 inepet Such a (eason is ha(0l4 plausible as the petitione(=s ne3 counsel shoul0 6no3 Othe(3ise) all a 0efeate0 pa(t4 3oul0 ha,e to 0o to sal,a5e his case is clai1 ne5lect o( 1ista6e on the pa(t of his counsel as a 5(oun0 fo( (e,e(sin5 the a0,e(se >u051ent The(e 3oul0 be no en0 to liti5ation if this 3e(e allo3e0 as e,e(4 sho(tco1in5 of counsel coul0 be the sub>ect of challen5e b4 his client th(ou5h anothe( counsel 3ho) if he is also foun0 3antin5) 3oul0 li6e3ise be 0iso3ne0 b4 the sa1e client th(ou5h anothe( counsel) an0 so on ad infinitum. This 3oul0 (en0e( cou(t p(ocee0in5s in0efinite) tentati,e an0 sub>ect to (eopenin5 at an4 ti1e b4 the 1e(e subte(fu5e of (eplacin5 counsel On the effects of counsel=s acts upon his client) this Cou(t has cate5o(icall4 0ecla(e0@

%
It has been (epeate0l4 enunciate0 that :a client is boun0 b4 the action of his counsel in the con0uct of a case an0 cannot be hea(0 to co1plain that the (esult 1i5ht ha,e been 0iffe(ent ha0 he p(ocee0e0 0iffe(entl4 ' client is boun0 b4 the 1ista6es of his la34e( If such 5(oun0s 3e(e to be a01itte0 an0 (easons fo( (eopenin5 cases) the(e 3oul0 ne,e( be an en0 to a suit so lon5 as ne3 counsel coul0 be e1plo4e0 3ho coul0 alle5e an0 sho3 that p(io( counsel ha0 not been sufficientl4 0ili5ent o( e<pe(ience0 o( lea(ne0 Mista6es of atto(ne4s as to the co1petenc4 of a 3itness) the sufficienc4) (ele,anc4 o( i((ele,anc4 of ce(tain e,i0ence) the p(ope( 0efense) o( the bu(0en of p(oof) failu(e to int(o0uce ce(tain e,i0ence) to su11on 3itnesses an0 to a(5ue the case a(e not pape( 5(oun0s fo( a ne3 t(ial) unless the inco1petenc4 of counsel is so 5(eat that his client is p(e>u0ice0 an0 p(e,ente0 f(o1 p(ope(l4 p(esence his case : AVol 7) Mo(an) Co11ents on the Rules of Cou(t) pp 71$) 71*"77F) citin5 Ri,e(o , Santos) et al ) *$ Phil &FF &F%" &F#C Isaac , Men0o2a) $* Phil 79*C Montes , Cou(t) #$ Phil ?#C People , Man2anilla) #% Phil 1?9C U S , Dun5ca) 79 Phil 79#) U S , U1ali) 1& Phil %%C see also People , Ne( 7$ SCR' 11&1) 11?#B In the 1*$$ case of Palanca , '1e(ican Foo0) etc A7# SCR' $1*) $7$B) this p(inciple 3as (eite(ate0 ATeso(o , Cou(t of 'ppeals) &# SCR' 7*?) %F#B 't that) it is not e,en e<actl4 t(ue) as the petitione( clai1s) that his e,i0ence 3as not consi0e(e0 b4 the t(ial cou(t in Ci,il Case No 1&&7 The (eco(0 sho3s that 3hen the 0efen0ants file0 thei( secon0 1otion fo( (econsi0e(ation an0;o( to allo3 the1 to p(esent thei( e,i0ence) 3hich 3as attache0) it 3as e<a1ine0 b4 the cou(t :in fai(ness to the 0efen0ants: but foun0 to be :so ,a5ue an0 not appea(in5 to be in0ubitable as to 3a((ant (eopenin5 of the case : 9This conclusion 3as (eache0 b4 the late +u05e +ai1e R '5lo(o afte( he ha0 1a0e a ca(eful an0 len5th4 anal4sis of such e,i0ence) 03ellin5 on each of the 0ispute0 p(ope(ties) thei( antece0ent) 0esc(iption) an0 the basis of the 0efen0ants= clai1s the(efo( ' 1e(e (ea0in5 of such 0iscussion) 3hich co,e(e0 t3o sin5le space0 t4pe3(itten pa5es) 3ill sho3 that) althou5h the >u05e coul0 ha,e si1pl4 0enie0 the secon0 1otion fo( (econsi0e(ation) he nonetheless too6 the ti1e an0 e<e(te0 painsta6in5 effo(ts to stu04 the p(offe(e0 e,i0ence The 1eticulous consi0e(ation of such e,i0ence co11en0s the t(ial >u05e=s tho(ou5hness an0 sense of >ustice an0 clea(l4 belies the petitione(=s co1plaint that he ha0 been 0enie0 0ue p(ocess Pe(haps it is fo( this (eason that the petitione( 0oes not st(on5l4 attac6 the 0ecision) p(efe((in5 to t(ain his si5hts on his o3n fo(1e( counsel 's he sa4s in his petition) he :0oes not see6 the nullit4 of the >u051ent (en0e(e0 in Ci,il Case No 1&&7 3hich has al(ea04 beco1e final 0ue to le5al technicalit4 : 10 Dhat he 0oes as6 fo( is a (econ,e4ance of the sub>ect p(ope(ties 3hich he sa4s 3e(e u0>ustl4 ta6en f(o1 hi1 as a (esult of his la34e(=s 1ista6es Such blun0e(s) he conten0s) a(e co((ectable in an action fo( (econ,e4ance 3hich the Cou(t shoul0 allo3 in the e<e(cise of its e8uit4 >u(is0iction The la3 on (econ,e4ance is clea() an0 >u(isp(u0ence the(eon is 3ell"settle0 This (e1e04 is a,ailable in cases 3he(e) as a (esult of 1ista6e o( f(au0) p(ope(t4 is (e5iste(e0 in the na1e of a pe(son not its o3ne( 11 Cle(ical e((o( in 0esi5natin5 the (eal o3ne( is a ,ali0 5(oun0 fo( (econ,e4ance afte( the 0ec(ee shall ha,e beco1e final follo3in5 the lapse of one 4ea( the(ef(o1 Recon,e4ance 1a4 also be sou5ht 3he(e it is establishe0 that a pe(son not entitle0 to the p(ope(t4 succee0e0 in (e5iste(in5 it in his na1e to the p(e>u0ice of the (eal o3ne( .o3e,e() it cannot be e1plo4e0 to ne5ate the effects of a ,ali0 0ecision of a cou(t of >ustice 0ete(1inin5 the conflictin5 clai1s of o3ne(ship of the pa(ties in an app(op(iate p(ocee0in5) as in Ci,il Case No 1&?7 The 0ecision in that case 3as a ,ali0 (esolution of the 8uestion of o3ne(ship o,e( the 0ispute0 p(ope(ties an0 cannot be (e,e(se0 no3 th(ou5h the (e1e04 of (econ,e4ance Fo( all its conce0e0 1e(its) e8uit4 is a,ailable onl4 in the absence of la3 an0 not as its (eplace1ent E8uit4 is 0esc(ibe0 as >ustice outsi0e le5alit4) 3hich si1pl4 1eans that it cannot supplant althou5h it 1a4) as often happens) supple1ent the la3 De sai0 in an ea(lie( case 12 an0 3e (epeat it no3) that all abst(act a(5u1ents base0 onl4 on e8uit4 shoul0 4iel0 to positi,e (ules) 3hich p(e"e1pt an0 p(e,ail o,e( such pe(suasions E1otional appeals fo( >ustice) 3hile the4 1a4 3(in5 the hea(t of the Cou(t) cannot >ustif4 0is(e5a(0 of the 1an0ate of the la3 as lon5 as it (e1ains in fo(ce The applicable 1a<i1) 3hich 5oes bac6 to the ancient 0a4s of the Ro1an >u(ists E an0 is no3 still (e,e(entl4 obse(,e0 E is :aequetas nunquam contravenit legis.

#
De fin0 it unnecessa(4 to (ule on the othe( a(5u1ents (aise0 b4 the petitione( as the4 3ill not affect the 0ecision 3e (each to0a4 This 0ecision 1ust a5ain be a0,e(se to hi1 althou5h he 1a4 this ti1e be (ep(esente0 b4 able counsel D.EREFORE) the petition is DENIED) 3ith costs a5ainst the petitione( It is so o(0e(e0 Narvasa, Gancayco and Grio-Aquino, JJ., concur. Teehan ee, !.J., too no "art.

Footnotes 1 Rollo, pp. 85-87; 91-93. 2 Ibid., pp. 118-119; 129. 3 Id., pp. 130-131. 4 Id., p. 81. 5 Id., pp. 46-47. 6 Bayang v. CA, 148 SCRA 91 & th !a" " !#t $ th %#n& Ra'o" v. (a)lo, 146 SCRA 24; Santo" v. *AC, 145 SCRA 238; C+ano v. CA, 143 SCRA 417; A%g+"on v. ,#!lat, 135 SCRA 678. 7 Rollo, p. 24. 8 B%# - -o% th ( t#t#on %, pp. 34, 13-14. 9 Ann . /1/, B%# - -o% th R "pon$ nt", p. 42. 10 Rollo, p. 25. 11 0#% !to% o- 1an$", t al. v. R g#"t % o- 0 $" o- R#2al, t al., 92 (h#l. 826; Ca"#llan v. 3"pa%t %o, t al., 95 (h#l. 799; B+"ta%ga v. 4avo, **, 129 SCRA 105; Ca%agay-1ayno v. CA, 133 SCRA 718. 12 5a)at, 6%. v. CA, 142 SCRA 587.