G.R. No. 106153 - FLORENCIO G. BERNARDO, VS. THE HON. SPECIAL SIXTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND JIMMY TOMAS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff: a) Declaring that Lot 3, Block 6, Phase III-C of the Development Project at Dagat-Dagatan, Kalookan City, was validly awarded and sold by defendant NHA to plaintiff Jimmy Tomas and, therefore, the latter is entitled to the ownership and possession thereof, and to this end defendant NHA is ordered to execute such other documents, as may be necessary in order to transfer full ownership and possession thereof to said plaintiff; b) Ordering defendant Florencio Bernardo to remove and to demolish the house he erected on said lot and thereafter deliver unto said plaintiff the peaceful possession of the same lot; c) Ordering defendant Florencio Bernardo to pay plaintiff the amounts of P100,000.00 actual damages, P200,000.00 as moral damages, P200,000.00 as exemplary damages, P30,000.00 as attorneys fees plus P500.00 per appearance, as well as the costs of suit; d) Dismissing defendant Bernardos counterclaim and cross-claim for lack of merit/substantiation; and e) Ordering defendant NHA to refund under proper receipt to defendant Florencio Bernardo the sum of P615,000.00 which the latter paid to and was accepted by the former. [14] Bernardo, through his new counsel, filed a nine-page Omnibus Motion [15] seeking (1) reconsideration of the above decision, (2) reopening of the case and (3) a new trial on the grounds that he had been denied his substantive right to due process, particularly the right to be heard, and that said decision was contrary to law. In an Order [16] dated August 7, 1991, the trial judge denied the motion, reasoning thus: The foregoing indeed illustrated a clear instance of a grossly negligent party shifting the blame from his own self to the court. We say grossly negligent because there was absolutely no justification for a client not to get in touch with his lawyer, much less to be ignorant or unaware of the latters death. And in the same manner that it is the duty of the lawyer to inform the court of the death of his client who is a party in a pending litigation, so is a client-party obligated to inform the court of the death of his lawyer. x x x x x x x x x Furthermore, new counsel knew or must have known that the raw information as to the death of Atty. Puerto was not even a verified information because when he entered his appearance on June 2, 1991 all he could say was that Atty. Puerto died recently. It was only on June 25, 1991 or after the lapse of almost five (5) months when he was able to produce a death certificate evidencing death of Atty. Puerto on January 28, 1991. Furthermore, since it was the law firm of PUERTO, NUÑEZ & ASSOCIATES who represented defendant Florencio Bernardo in this case, it behooved any partner or employee therein to inform this Court that Atty. Puerto of said law firm who was handling this case was already dead and that nobody in the same law firm was taking over from said Atty. Pue