GR 141863; (June, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141863 ; June 26, 2003
BASILIO RIVERA, TOMAS RIVERA, CORNELIO RIVERA and LADISLAO RIVERA, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, AND SPOUSES DANILO DEATO and DIVINA LEGASPI, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint to quiet title over a parcel of land, claiming ownership by acquisitive prescription. Respondents, registered owners under TCT No. V-24759, countered that petitioners were merely agricultural tenants who had agreed to vacate for disturbance compensation. The trial court initially ruled for petitioners but, upon reconsideration, reversed itself and declared respondents the lawful owners. The Court of Appeals affirmed this reversal.
Subsequently, petitioners, through new counsel, filed a motion for new trial before the Court of Appeals. They sought to introduce an “Assignment of Sales Certificate” dated 1909, which they claimed was vital to prove their predecessor’s interest. Petitioners argued their previous counsel’s failure to present this document constituted excusable negligence warranting a new trial. The appellate court denied the motion, ruling the document was not newly discovered evidence and was contrary to petitioners’ prior theory.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for new trial based on the alleged excusable negligence of petitioners’ former counsel.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the denial of the motion for new trial. The Court clarified that a motion for new trial may be granted on grounds of newly discovered evidence or fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Petitioners anchored their plea on the latter, specifically the negligence of their former counsel, Atty. Braulio Darum.
The Court held that for negligence of counsel to be excusable, it must be so gross, reckless, and inexcusable as to deprive the client of due process. The standard is whether the client was deprived of a fair hearing, not merely whether the lawyer advocated an erroneous legal position. Here, Atty. Darum actively represented petitioners, filed pleadings, and participated fully in the trial. His alleged error was a tactical decision on evidence presentation, which did not amount to a deprivation of petitioners’ right to be heard. Clients are generally bound by the mistakes of their counsel. The Court found no gross negligence, as petitioners were afforded a full opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly denied the motion for new trial.