G.R. No. 138518; December 15, 2000
MARCELINA GACUTANA-FRAILE, petitioner, vs. ANGEL T. DOMINGO, BENJAMIN T. DOMINGO, ATTY. JORGE PASCUA AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC BRANCH 33, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Marcelina Gacutana-Fraile filed a civil case for Quieting of Title against respondents Angel and Benjamin Domingo. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 879-G. While this was pending, the Domingos filed their own Quieting of Title case against Fraile involving the same parcels of land, docketed as Civil Case No. 955-G. Both cases were assigned to the same RTC branch. Fraile hired Atty. Jorge Pascua as her counsel for both cases. Atty. Pascua filed a Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. 955-G, but not on the ground of litis pendentia; instead, he cited an unrelated reconstitution order. The trial court ordered a joint hearing. During pre-trial, Atty. Pascua persuaded Fraile to withdraw her motion. In the joint hearings, he agreed to a continuous four-day trial and allowed the Domingos to present evidence first, despite Fraile’s case being filed earlier.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Domingos. Atty. Pascua filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Reconsideration, but these were denied due to fatal procedural defects: lack of proof of service, absence of a written explanation for non-personal filing, failure to specify the appellate court, and non-payment of docket fees. A subsequent motion was also denied. The judgment became final and was executed, leading to the cancellation of Fraile’s titles. Fraile then hired new counsel and filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals, alleging that Atty. Pascua’s procedural lapses constituted extrinsic fraud done in connivance with the Domingos.

ISSUE

Whether the procedural negligence and alleged bungling of the case by petitioner’s former counsel, Atty. Jorge Pascua, constitute extrinsic fraud sufficient to annul the final judgment of the trial court.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment. The Court held that the acts and omissions of Atty. Pascua, while constituting gross negligence, did not amount to extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud refers to a deliberate and contrived act, such as keeping a party away from court or preventing them from presenting their case, which is external to the trial and prevents a fair submission of the controversy. The negligence of counsel, even if gross, is generally not considered extrinsic fraud. Mistakes and errors in the conduct of a case are intrinsic to the proceedings; the remedy for such errors is an appeal, not annulment.
The Court found that Fraile was not prevented from participating in the trial. She was present and represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The alleged errors—such as the failure to file a proper motion to dismiss, consenting to joint trial, and the defective filing of appeals—pertain to trial strategy and procedural mishandling intrinsic to the litigation process. The claim of connivance between Atty. Pascua and the Domingos was unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, the proper remedy for the denial of the motions for reconsideration and notice of appeal was to elevate those orders via a petition for certiorari, which was not done. Annulment of judgment is an extraordinary remedy reserved for instances of lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud, not for correcting errors of judgment or counsel’s negligence. The