As culled from the evidence on records, on December 28, 1999, Total Office Products and Services (TOPROS), Inc. (plaintiff below), through its authorized representative Junnifer A. Ty, filed a complaint for annulment of contract with the court a quo. On February 24, 2000, summons was served on Antonio Chua (defendant below). On February 28, 2000, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but the same was denied in an order dated August 9, 2000. On September 3, 2000, defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied in an order dated October 6, 2000. [On January 15, 2001, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the RTC's order denying the motion to dismiss. The CA did not issue a restraining order against the RTC.] Since no answer was filed by defendant, plaintiff filed a motion to declare defendant in default. On April 1, 2001, the court a quo issued an order declaring defendant in default and ordering the reception of the plaintiff's evidence ex-parte.
Following the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence before a commissioner, the court a quo on March 6, 2002 rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff as follows:
1. Declaring as null and void and has no legal effect, the loan contract and mortgage contract for being fictitious;
2. Ordering the cancellation of the annotation appearing in TCT Nos. 62352 and 62353 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City;
3. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) as reasonable attorney's fees; and
4. Costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
x x x the exception is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court. x x xx x x x
If the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great and the error committed as a result thereof is so serious that the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in court, the litigation may be reopened to give the client another chance to present his case. In a criminal proceeding, where certain evidence was not presented because of counsel's error or incompetence, the defendant in order to secure a new trial must satisfy the court that he has a good defense and that the acquittal would in all probability have followed the introduction of the omitted evidence. What should guide judicial action is that a party be given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose life, liberty, honor or property on mere technicalities.6 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
* Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, per raffle dated January 30, 2012.
** Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, per Special Order No. 1178 dated January 26, 2012.
1 Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now Supreme Court Associate Justice), concurring.
2 Id.
3 Rollo, pp. 19-20.
4 Briones v. People, G.R. No. 156009, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 362, 372.
5 G.R. No. 161070, April 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 191.
6 Id. at 207-208.