Espinosa vs Court of Appeals

GR No. 128686
May 28, 2004

FACTS:
The Alcantaras filed an ejectment case against Espinosa after finding through a relocation survey that a
portion of their lot covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title was occupied by Espinosas restaurant,
known as Tatoys Manokan and Seafoods Restaurant. After the MTC judge dismissed in favor of
Espinosa, the Alcantaras appealed in the RTC where the judges decision was in favor of the Alcantaras.
Less than three months later, Espinosa filed a Petition of Annulment of Judgement with the CA which
was dismissed and declared that Espinosa and his present counsel were in contempt of court for forum-
shopping. Espinosa alleged that the RTCs decision was attended with extrinsic fraud due to the fact that
he did not know that his former counsel agreed to have the relocation survey, and, furthermore, he
should not be bound by his former counsels acts.

ISSUE:
Was Espinosa bound by his former counsels decisions in the conduct of the case?

DECISION:
Yes, Espinosa was bound by his former counsels decisions in the conduct of the case because the
general rule is that when the client retains the services of a lawyer, the client is bound by the mistakes of
his counsel, save when the negligence of the counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client
is deprived of his day in court. Undoubtedly, Espinosa and his former counsel, agreed to the relocation
survey, and were present during the survey and are, thus, estopped from questioning its very conduct in
the first place. Moreover, his former counsels acts hardly constitute gross and palpable negligence. Even
if his former lawyer committed a tactical error in consenting to the relocation survey, this was done out
of the honest belief that the survey would benefit his clients cause.