JOAQUIN C. YUSECO, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, AND HECTOR S. CRUZ, RESPNDENTS.

Yuseco versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Joaquin C. Yuseco against the Court of Appeals and Hector S. Cruz, arising from the appellate court's reopening of appeals that had long been dismissed with finality. Yuseco had won a money judgment against Cruz in the Court of First Instance of Manila, and two civil cases Cruz had filed against Yuseco in the Court of First Instance of Olongapo City had been dismissed. When Cruz's appeals from all three judgments were dismissed for failure to file the appellant's brief, and that dismissal became final, the records were returned to the trial courts and execution began. The Court of Appeals then reinstated the appeals without hearing Yuseco and without giving any reason. The case matters because it draws the line between a court's discretion to relieve a litigant from a lawyer's neglect and the respect owed to judgments that have already become final.

Procedural History

In the Court of First Instance of Manila, Yuseco obtained judgment against Cruz in a civil case for a sum of money plus costs. Earlier, the Court of First Instance of Olongapo City had dismissed the two civil cases Cruz had filed against Yuseco. Cruz appealed all three judgments, and the Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals in one division.

When Cruz's counsel failed to file the appellant's brief, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals on its own motion. Counsel moved for reconsideration on the ground of excusable negligence, and the motion was denied. No further step was taken, so the dismissal became final and the records were remanded to the courts of origin. Yuseco then moved for execution of the Manila judgment, and execution was partially satisfied.

Cruz later filed with the Court of Appeals a petition to reinstate the appeals, which the appellate court granted without giving Yuseco a chance to be heard. Yuseco came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari and prohibition, and the Court granted the petition.

Facts

Yuseco secured a judgment from the Court of First Instance of Manila sentencing Cruz to pay him a sum of money plus costs. Earlier, the Court of First Instance of Olongapo City had dismissed the two civil cases Cruz had filed against Yuseco. Cruz appealed in all three cases, and the appeals were consolidated in one division of the Court of Appeals.

Cruz's counsel of record failed to file his brief in all three cases. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals on its own motion. Counsel moved for reconsideration on the ground of excusable negligence, claiming that his secretary had failed to note the notice from the appellate court and that he himself lacked sufficient experience. The motion was denied. No further move was taken, the dismissal became final, and the records were remanded to the courts of origin.

Yuseco moved in the Manila case for execution of the money judgment in his favor. The motion was granted, and execution had already been partially satisfied, when Cruz filed with the Court of Appeals a petition to reinstate the appeal. The appellate court granted it without giving Yuseco a chance to be heard and without stating any reason. The Court of Appeals later denied reconsideration.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted within the bounds of sound discretion in reinstating appeals that had already been dismissed with finality, without hearing the adverse party and without giving any reason for its action.
• Whether or not the alleged neglect of Cruz's counsel, once denied by the lawyer himself, was sufficiently shown to justify reopening a case already terminated by final judgment.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. Its reasoning rests on the settled rule that final judgments are entitled to respect and should not be disturbed, and on the settled doctrine governing relief from the negligence of counsel.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals went beyond the bounds of sound discretion. The appellate court had dismissed the appeals on its own motion, denied reconsideration, and allowed the dismissal to become final; the trial court was already executing its judgment when Cruz first moved for reinstatement more than seven months later. Yet the appellate court reopened the case without hearing Yuseco and without giving any reason, which the Court said smacked of arbitrariness.

On the second issue, the Court held that the alleged neglect of counsel was not adequately shown. The Court distinguished an earlier case where reinstatement was allowed because there was a clear finding of fraud consisting of the deliberate refusal of counsel to file his brief. Here, counsel's failure was attributed only to excusable negligence, and Cruz's charge that his lawyer had abandoned the cases because of a misunderstanding was not sufficiently shown in the pleadings. Cruz had a chance to enlighten the Court at the hearing, but his counsel did not appear and merely submitted the case on the papers already filed.

The Court expressed the governing principle in these words:

The Court will always be disposed to grant relief to parties aggrieved by perfidy, fraud, reckless inattention and downright incompetence of lawyers, which has the consequence of depriving their clients, of their day in court, but understandably, We cannot reopen cases where the abovestated grounds, once denied by the lawyer himself, are not adequately shown.

And on the weight of finality:

It must be borne in mind that final judgments are entitled to respect and should not be disturbed, as otherwise, there would be a corresponding wavering of trust in the courts.

The Court added that every case where such grounds for reopening are alleged must be treated according to its own merits, depending on the degree of conclusiveness of the evidence submitted to prove the misconduct of the lawyer.

Doctrine

A client is generally bound by the negligence of counsel, and relief from such negligence is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion. The Court will grant relief to a party aggrieved by the perfidy, fraud, reckless inattention, or downright incompetence of a lawyer that deprived the client of his day in court, but it cannot reopen a case where those grounds, once denied by the lawyer himself, are not adequately shown. The evidence of the lawyer's misconduct must be conclusive, and each case is judged on its own merits.

Final judgments are entitled to respect and should not be disturbed, for otherwise there would be a wavering of trust in the courts. A court that reopens a case already terminated by final judgment must hear the adverse party and must state the reason for its action; acting without either is an abuse of discretion correctable by certiorari.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the resolutions of the Court of Appeals reinstating the appeals were annulled and set aside, and the records were ordered returned to the trial courts for execution of the final judgments, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that final judgments are entitled to respect and should not be disturbed, and that relief from a lawyer's neglect lies only where the misconduct is conclusively shown. Examiners use this case on the binding effect of counsel's negligence, abuse of discretion in reinstating appeals, and the finality of judgments.