G.R. No. L-31987 November 21, 1979
DOLORES, EUFEMIA, PEDRO, FELICITAS, ELENA and GAGA, all surnamed CABALES and ALEJANDRO TORRES, petitioners, vs. JOSETO TAN NERY and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Joseto Tan Nery filed a complaint for recovery of a portion of real property against petitioners. After procedural developments, the case was set for hearing on October 16, 1966. Petitioners and their counsel failed to appear despite notice. The trial court then allowed Nery to present evidence ex-parte and subsequently rendered a decision in his favor, ordering petitioners to vacate the land and pay damages. Petitioners’ counsel received a copy of the decision on November 25, 1966.
On January 24, 1967, petitioners filed a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38. Their counsel, Atty. Augusto Maderazo, alleged excusable negligence. He claimed that on October 5, 1966, he was served a notice of hearing for this case while attending to a different case in another branch of the court. He unconsciously inserted the notice into the record of the other case and forgot about it, leading to his non-appearance at the October 16 hearing. The trial court denied the petition for relief, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of the petition for relief from judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appealed decision. The Court held that the negligence of petitioners’ counsel was not excusable and did not warrant relief under Rule 38. The power to grant relief is not absolute and is confined to instances of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence that ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. Here, counsel’s failure to properly calendar the hearing notice and his lack of a system to track case schedules constituted simple, not excusable, negligence. The duty of an attorney extends beyond mere appearances and includes taking precautionary measures to safeguard the client’s interest.
The Court emphasized that a client is bound by the actions, mistakes, and negligence of their counsel in the conduct of a case. To admit a lawyer’s negligence as a routine ground for reopening cases would lead to endless litigation, as new counsel could always allege prior counsel’s deficiencies. Furthermore, the matter of granting relief for non-appearance is largely discretionary with the trial judge, and no abuse of discretion was patent here. The Court also noted that an affidavit concerning a survey, which petitioners raised to support their defense on appeal, could not be considered as it was not properly pleaded before the trial court.