G.R. No. 176834 - GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC., VS. SPOUSES EDNA AND ALBERTO MORAL.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the November 21, 2002 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalookan City, Branch 122, in Civil Case No. C-19584, is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED . [9] (Emphasis in the original) In ruling in favor of Spouses Moral, the CA held in part: In the present case, Gotesco was given several opportunities to present evidence but it failed to do so and in effect failed to present its star witness, who was to testify on its evidence. In fact, on the September 5, 2002 hearing, the postponement of the presentation of Gotescos evidence was on motion of plaintiff-appellant Gotescos counsel. The RTC was being consistent in avoiding delay as prayed for by plaintiff-appellant Gotesco which moved for presentation of evidence ex parte when defendant-appellees were absent, and so to be fair, when it was plaintiff-appellant Gotesco and counsel absent, the trial court dismissed the case. [10] On 5 July 2006, Gotesco, through its new counsel Pacheco Law Office, filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the ground that Atty. Ungson was grossly negligent in representing Gotesco. In its Resolution dated 18 January 2007, the CA denied the motion. Hence, this appeal. The Issue Gotesco seeks a reversal based on the sole issue it raised for the first time in its Motion for Reconsideration before the CA, to wit: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN LAW WHEN IT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENTS, WHEN IT BOUND THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF IT[S] FORMER COUNSEL THEREBY DEPRIVING HEREIN PETITIONER [OF] SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BY NOT GIVING PETITIONER ITS DAY IN COURT. [11] The Ruling of the Court The petition has no merit. The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique. [12] The basis is the tenet that an act performed by counsel within the scope of a general or implied authority is regarded as an act of the client. [13] While the application of this general rule certainly depends upon the surrounding circumstances of a given case, there are exceptions recognized by this Court: (1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property; or (3) where the interests of justice so require. [14] The present case does not fall under the said exceptions. In Amil v. Court of Appeals , [15] the Court held that to fall within the exceptional circumstance relied upon x x x, it must be shown that the negligence of counsel must be so gross that the client is deprived of his day in court. Thus, []where a party was given the opportunity to defend [its] interests in due course, [it] cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. To properly claim gross negligence on the part of the counsel, the petitioner must sho