Salonga V Ca Digest.docx

Article III, Section1 Motion for Reconsideration (190) George Salonga v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 111478 March 13, 1997 Panganiban, J. POINT OF THE CASE: A judgment can be annulled only on two (2) grounds: (a) that the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or lack of due process of law; or (b) that it has been obtained by fraud. Absent any of these grounds, a final and executory judgment cannot be voided. FACTS: Milagros Izon agreed to the joint venture of Paul Geneve Corporation (Respondent) with Petitioner Salonga’s Solid Intertain to form a new corporation. This joint venture will then provide leasehold holding rights of the property in Makati from the former to the latter. Respondent signed the document. It was then delivered to petitioner for his signature. However, the said documents were not signed by the petitioner. The petitioner transferred all equipment to the property in Makati and operations for Club Ibiza began on the leased premises in question under Solid Intertain Corporation. The respondent filed a complaint for specific performance with temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with prayer for damages against herein petitioners to enforce a memorandum of agreement that was supposedly perfected between the parties. Petitioners received a copy of order issued but failed to appear on two hearing dates. Due to petitioner’s failure to file an answer, the respondent submitted a third ex parte motion to declare petitioner, as defendant in Default which the court favorably acted. The petitioner raised to CA the fraudulent handling of his counsel Atty. Garlitos in handling the case. These allegedly fraudulent acts of Garlitos are (1) his "very late" arrival at the December 4, 1991 hearing tackling private respondent's application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, arriving only after the testimony of private respondent's witness; (2) his failure to appear at the December 9, 1991 hearing "for purposes of submitting evidence/opposition to private respondent's aforementioned application for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, as a consequence of which said private respondent's application was deemed 'submitted for resolution' . . ." by the trial judge; (3) his failure to appear on the date he himself requested, January 17, 1992, for the hearing of the Motion for Dissolution of Injunction he had filed on behalf of petitioners; (4) his failure to file an answer within the period required by the Rules of Court, which resulted in a decision by default in favor of private respondents; (5) his failure to appear on the date he requested for hearing petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration on July 8, 1992, as a result of which the motion was considered submitted for resolution since only the counsel for private respondent was present; and (6) his failure to appear at the August 26, 1992 hearing during which the counsel for private respondent successfully obtained denial of the aforementioned motion. ISSUE: Whether or not the judgment of the lower court should be annulled on grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process. RULING: No, the nature of extrinsic fraud, as discussed previously, necessarily requires that its cause be traceable to some fraudulent act of the prevailing party committed outside the trial of the case. The Court notes that the previously enumerated negligent acts attributed to petitioner's former counsel Garlitos were

in no way shown or alleged to have been caused by private respondents. Atty. Garlitos neither connived nor sold out to the latter.