GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC. vs. SPOUSES EDNA and ALBERTO MORAL G.R. NO. 176834; N v!"#!

$ %1, %&1% 'ACTS( Respondent spouses Edna and Alberto Moral (Spouses Moral) executed a Reservation-Application Contract to buy a subdivision house and lot with petitioner Gotesco Properties !nc" (Gotesco) a private do#estic corporation who owns the Ever$reen Executive %illa$e" Spouses Moral paid the stipulated down pay#ent and a$reed that the balance would be paid throu$h a &ni'ied (ousin$ )endin$ Pro$ra# Sche#e by Rural *an+ o' Para,a-ue" *ut they 'ailed to pay such when Gotesco de#anded the pay#ent" So Gotesco throu$h its counsel Atty" A$erico M" &n$son (Atty" &n$son) 'iled a Co#plaint 'or Su# o' Money a$ainst Spouses Moral" R.C $ranted the #otion o' Gotesco throu$h Atty" &n$son to declare Spouses Moral in de'ault upon the latter/s 'ailure to 'ile an answer" Gotesco #oved to set the presentation o' evidence ex parte but Atty" &n$son 'ailed to appear and present evidence on the said date so R.C dis#issed the case 'or 'ailure to prosecute" A Motion 'or Reconsideration explainin$ Atty" &n$son/s 'ailure to appear 'iled by Gotesco was denied and still throu$h Atty" &n$son 'iled an appeal with the CA which was dis#issed and a''ir#ed the lower court/s decision" .hus this petition" ISSUE( 0hether or not the CA erred in rulin$ in 'avor o' the respondents when it bound the petitioner to the ne$li$ence o' it(s) 'or#er counsel thereby deprivin$ petitioner (o') substantial 1ustice" )ELD( 2o" .he Supre#e Court ruled that both the R.C and the CA $ave due course to the pleadin$s 'iled by Gotesco throu$h Atty" &n$son" .he CA even accepted the late 'ilin$ o' its Appellant/s *rie'" 0here opportunity to be heard either throu$h oral ar$u#ents or pleadin$s is accorded there is no denial o' due process"

.he $eneral rule is that a client is bound by the acts even #ista+es o' his counsel in the real# o' procedural techni-ue" .he basis is the tenet that an act per'or#ed by counsel within the scope o' a 3$eneral or i#plied authority4 is re$arded as an act o' the client" 0hile the application o' this $eneral rule certainly depends upon the surroundin$ circu#stances o' a $iven case there are exceptions reco$ni5ed by this Court6 3(7) where rec+less or $ross ne$li$ence o' counsel deprives the client o' due process o' law8 (9) when its application will result in outri$ht deprivation o' the client/s liberty or property8 or (:) where the interests o' 1ustice so re-uire"4 !n this case Atty" &n$son/s ne$li$ence was his postpone#ent and 'ailure to appear at the presentation o' evidence ex parte without 1usti'iable cause" Adoptin$ si#ilar principles laid down by 1urisprudence the SC 'inds that Atty" &n$son #erely co##itted si#ple ne$li$ence" Since this is not a case where the ne$li$ence o' counsel is one that is so $ross palpable pervasive and rec+less which is the type o' ne$li$ence that deprives a party o' his or her day in court the Court need no lon$er concern itsel' with the #erits o' petitioner;s causes o' action nor consider the propriety o' the dis#issal o' the case by the trial court 'or lac+ o' interest to prosecute" Moreover Gotesco was not without 'ault" Gotesco never co#plained a$ainst the #anner in which its counsel had handled the case until late in the day" Gotesco still hired Atty" &n$son be'ore the CA a'ter his supposed blunders be'ore the R.C" <ne is bound by the decisions o' one;s counsel re$ardin$ the conduct o' the case especially where the 'or#er does not co#plain a$ainst the #anner in which the latter handled the case" .o $ive due course to Gotesco/s stance would enable every party to render inutile any adverse order or decision throu$h the si#ple expedient o' alle$in$ $ross ne$li$ence the part o' its counsel" .he Supre#e Court denied the petition and a''ir#ed the decision o' the appellate court"