Tuason vs. Court of Appeals

Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client, and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform the client of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of the right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face; a petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy available only when there is no other adequate remedy and cannot be availed of when the loss of the remedy at law was due to the party's own negligence.

The dispute arises from a petition for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage filed by the wife against the husband on grounds of psychological incapacity, physical abuse, drug addiction, and infidelity. The husband participated in the initial stages of the trial but failed to appear during the presentation of his evidence, leading to a judgment by default against him which became final and executory.

• In 1989, private respondent Maria Victoria Lopez Tuason filed a petition for annulment or declaration of nullity of her marriage to petitioner Emilio Tuason, alleging psychological incapacity, drug use, physical violence, and infidelity.
• Petitioner filed an Answer denying the allegations and claiming the marriage was normal for the first ten years until his wife treated him with hostility.
• Trial commenced on March 30, 1990, where the private respondent presented witnesses and documentary evidence, including a prior church annulment decree.
• After the private respondent rested her case, the reception of the petitioner's evidence was scheduled for May 11, 1990, but was postponed to June 8, 1990, upon motion of his counsel.
• On June 8, 1990, the petitioner failed to appear; consequently, the court declared he waived his right to present evidence and deemed the case submitted for decision.
• On June 29, 1990, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the marriage null and void based on psychological incapacity.
• Petitioner's counsel received the decision on August 24, 1990, but no appeal was taken, causing the judgment to become final and executory.
• On October 17, 1990, petitioner, through new counsel, filed a petition for relief from judgment, claiming he was confined for drug rehabilitation starting March 27, 1990, and his former counsel failed to inform the court of this fact or notify him of the adverse judgment.

• The trial court decision is null and void for violation of his right to due process because he was unable to present evidence due to his confinement for medical/rehabilitation reasons.
• His failure to appear was due to excusable negligence, as he was admitted to a drug rehabilitation center.
• His former counsel was negligent in failing to inform the trial court of his confinement and failing to inform him of the adverse judgment, preventing him from appealing.
• The trial court erred by not ordering the prosecuting attorney to intervene to prevent collusion, as required by Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code.
• He has a meritorious defense, arguing that the marriage was normal for ten years and that he continued to support the family.

• The petitioner actively participated in the proceedings by filing an Answer and cross-examining witnesses, negating the claim of denied due process.
• The judgment had already become final and executory due to the petitioner's failure to appeal within the reglementary period.
• There was no collusion between the parties as evidenced by the vehement opposition and contested nature of the litigation.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether a petition for relief from judgment is warranted based on the alleged negligence of counsel and the petitioner's confinement.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the non-intervention of the prosecuting attorney to prevent collusion renders the annulment proceedings and judgment void.

• Procedural:
  • The Court denied the petition, ruling that the failure of the petitioner's counsel to notify him of the adverse judgment is negligence that is not excusable and is binding upon the client.
  • The Court held that the petitioner was not denied due process because he was given the opportunity to be heard, having filed an answer and cross-examined witnesses; he simply lost his right to present evidence due to non-appearance.
  • The Court established that a petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy allowed only when there is no other available remedy; since the petitioner lost his remedy of appeal through his own (or his counsel's) negligence, he cannot avail of relief from judgment to revive the lost right to appeal.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that the strict application of Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code regarding the prosecutor's intervention was not called for because the petitioner was not in default for failure to answer.
  • The Court reasoned that the role of the prosecutor is to prevent collusion, and since the petitioner actively contested the case, filed pleadings, and cross-examined witnesses, it was clear that no collusion existed.
  • The Court affirmed the trial court's finding of psychological incapacity as final and binding, noting that the petitioner failed to show these findings were manifestly erroneous.

• Binding Nature of Counsel's Negligence — Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client, and the counsel's failure to inform the client of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of the right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid on its face. In this case, the former counsel's failure to inform the court of the petitioner's rehab confinement or the petitioner of the judgment bound the petitioner.
• Relief from Judgment as Equitable Remedy — Relief from judgment is allowed only in exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy. It cannot be used when a party has another remedy (like appeal) that was lost through their own negligence or that of their counsel.
• Role of Prosecutor in Annulment Cases — The prosecuting attorney must appear on behalf of the State to prevent collusion and ensure evidence is not fabricated. However, the Supreme Court interpreted this to mean that non-intervention is not fatal to the validity of proceedings if the record shows the litigation was a "no-holds-barred contest" where the defendant actively participated and there was clearly no collusion.

• "The state can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members."
• "Indeed, relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence; otherwise the petition for relief can be used to revive the right to appeal which had been lost thru inexcusable negligence."

• Palanca v. American Food Mfg. Co. — Cited to support the rule that notice to counsel is binding on the client and counsel's neglect is not a ground to set aside a valid judgment.
• Ibabao v. Intermediate Appellate Court — Cited to reinforce that relief from judgment is not available if the party had a remedy (appeal) that they failed to use due to negligence.
• Periquet, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court — Cited regarding the finality of the trial court's factual findings on psychological incapacity.

• Rule 38, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court — Governs petitions for relief from judgment, requiring a showing of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and a meritorious defense.
• Family Code, Article 48 — Mandates the court to order the prosecuting attorney to appear in annulment cases to prevent collusion and ensure evidence is not fabricated.
• Family Code, Article 60 — Mandates the prosecuting attorney's intervention in legal separation cases to prevent collusion.
• Family Code, Articles 50 and 51 — Referenced regarding the effects of annulment on property and children.