G.R. No. L-36666 December 19, 1973
ORLINO TESORO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and BENJAMIN SANIDAD, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Orlino Tesoro and private respondent Benjamin Sanidad were candidates for mayor of Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur in the 1971 elections. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Sanidad as the winner. Tesoro filed an election protest, and Sanidad filed a counter-protest. The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation before the trial court, expressly agreeing to submit the case for decision based solely on the ballots and other documentary exhibits, without presenting any further testimonial or other evidence. The trial court, after a meticulous examination of the ballots, rendered a 164-page decision declaring Tesoro the duly elected mayor.
Sanidad appealed to the Court of Appeals. After changing counsel, his new lawyer filed a motion to remand the case to the trial court for a new trial. The motion alleged the discovery of newly found evidence, including possible tampering of ballots and the condition of ballot boxes, and sought to present expert testimony and additional documents. Tesoro opposed, arguing the motion was an attempt to renege on the binding stipulation and to remedy a tactical choice made during trial.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in granting a new trial and remanding the case based on the motion filed by the new counsel for respondent Sanidad.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and directed it to decide the appeal based on the evidence already submitted. The legal logic is anchored on the finality and binding effect of stipulations and the proper grounds for a new trial. The parties voluntarily entered into a clear agreement to limit the evidence for the trial court’s decision to the ballots and documentary exhibits. This stipulation is binding and forecloses the subsequent introduction of additional evidence. A party cannot be allowed to repudiate a stipulation simply due to a change in counsel or a change of heart regarding trial strategy.
Furthermore, the alleged “newly discovered evidence” did not meet the stringent requirements for granting a new trial. The evidence pertaining to the condition of the ballot boxes and the need for expert examination was not newly discovered but was, in fact, forgotten or overlooked evidence. Sanidad and his original counsel knew or should have known about these matters during the trial proceedings. The rules do not permit a new trial to remedy a party’s or counsel’s tactical mistakes or oversight in the presentation of evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that a client is bound by the actions and mistakes of his counsel in the conduct of the case, and appellate courts are not forums to correct such strategic errors. The respondent Court of Appeals therefore acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering a remand, which would unduly delay the resolution of an election contest that public interest demands be settled with utmost dispatch.