Tuason vs. Court of Appeals

A final and executory judgment may not be set aside via a petition for relief from judgment when the loss of the right to appeal is due to the inexcusable negligence of the petitioner's counsel. The mandatory appearance of a prosecuting attorney in annulment proceedings under Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code is not required when the case is actively litigated and there is no allegation of collusion between the parties.

Private respondent Maria Victoria L. Tuason filed a petition for annulment of her marriage to petitioner Emilio R. Tuason, alleging the latter's psychological incapacity at the time of the marriage, manifested by drug abuse, womanizing, abandonment, and financial mismanagement. Petitioner contested the allegations, claiming the marriage was normal for its first ten years and attributing their problems to his wife's disrespect and alleged drug use and infidelity. During trial, after private respondent presented her evidence, petitioner's counsel twice secured postponements for the reception of his evidence. On the rescheduled date, petitioner failed to appear, and the trial court declared him to have waived his right to present evidence and deemed the case submitted for decision based on private respondent's evidence alone.

• Nature of the Action: Private respondent filed a petition for annulment of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity).
• Petitioner's Participation: Petitioner filed an Answer, cross-examined private respondent's witnesses, and filed an opposition to a motion for dissolution of the conjugal partnership.
• Waiver of Right to Present Evidence: After private respondent rested her case, petitioner's counsel secured a postponement. On the next hearing date, petitioner failed to appear. The court, on oral motion, declared he had waived his right to present evidence.
• Basis for Non-Appearance: In his petition for relief, petitioner claimed he was confined in a drug rehabilitation center during the scheduled hearings. A certification was attached, but his former counsel had not informed the court of this reason.
• Trial Court's Ruling: The RTC rendered judgment annulling the marriage based solely on private respondent's evidence.
• Finality of Judgment: Petitioner's former counsel received the decision but failed to file a timely appeal. The judgment became final and executory.
• Petition for Relief: Petitioner, through new counsel, filed a petition for relief from judgment, alleging denial of due process and the existence of a meritorious defense. The RTC denied this petition.

• Due Process Violation: Petitioner argued he was denied due process when the trial court deemed him to have waived his right to present evidence and rendered judgment without the mandatory intervention of a prosecuting attorney as required by Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code.
• Excusable Negligence: Petitioner contended that his failure to appeal was due to excusable negligence, as he was undergoing medical treatment and his former counsel was abroad when the decision was received.
• Meritorious Defense: Petitioner insisted he had a valid defense, claiming he was not psychologically incapacitated, as evidenced by the first ten years of their marriage and his continued support for his family.

• Inexcusable Negligence: Respondent countered that the negligence of petitioner's counsel in failing to appeal and in not informing the court of his confinement was not excusable. Notice to counsel is binding on the client.
• No Denial of Due Process: Respondent argued that petitioner was not denied his day in court, as he actively participated by filing an answer, cross-examining witnesses, and filing other pleadings.
• No Collusion: Respondent maintained that the case was adversarial, not collusive, thus the intervention of a prosecuting attorney was not mandatory.

• Relief from Judgment: Whether a petition for relief from judgment is a proper remedy to assail a final and executory judgment where the failure to appeal was due to counsel's negligence.
• Due Process and Mandatory Intervention: Whether the trial court's judgment is void for alleged denial of due process and for failure to order the intervention of a prosecuting attorney pursuant to Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code.

• Relief from Judgment: The petition for relief from judgment was not warranted. The failure of petitioner's former counsel to notify him of the adverse judgment and to file a timely appeal constitutes inexcusable negligence. A petition for relief is an equitable remedy unavailable when the loss of a remedy at law (like appeal) is due to one's own negligence.
• Due Process and Mandatory Intervention: The judgment is not void. Petitioner was not denied due process because he had his day in court through active participation. The mandatory intervention of a prosecuting attorney under Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code applies only when there is a possibility of collusion, such as in default judgments or when the proceedings are uncontested. Here, the case was vigorously litigated, and no collusion was alleged or shown.

• Excusable Negligence as Ground for Relief — Under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, a petition for relief from judgment may be granted on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. However, the negligence of counsel, such as failure to inform the client of an adverse judgment or to file a timely appeal, binds the client and is generally not excusable. Relief will not be granted to a party seeking to avoid the effects of a judgment when the loss of the legal remedy was due to such negligence.
• State Interest in Marriage and the Role of the Fiscal — Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code mandate the intervention of a prosecuting attorney in annulment and legal separation proceedings to prevent collusion and ensure evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. This reflects the state's policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution. However, this mandatory intervention is not required when the proceedings are clearly adversarial and contested, as the danger of collusion is absent.

• "The failure of petitioner’s counsel to notify him on time of the adverse judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence which is not excusable. Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face."
• "Petitioner’s vehement opposition to the annulment proceedings negates the conclusion that collusion existed between the parties. There is no allegation by the petitioner that evidence was suppressed or fabricated by any of the parties. Under these circumstances, we are convinced that the non-intervention of a prosecuting attorney to assure lack of collusion between the contending parties is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings in the trial court."

• Palanca v. American Food Mfg. Co., 24 SCRA 819 [1968] — Cited for the rule that notice to counsel of record is binding on the client.
• Ibabao v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 150 SCRA 76 [1987] — Cited for the principle that a petition for relief is not available when a party has another adequate remedy and the loss thereof was due to his own negligence.
• San Gabriel v. San Gabriel, (CA) 56 O.G. 3555 [1959] — Cited to illustrate the role of the prosecuting attorney in opposing an annulment if evidence is deemed dubious.

• Article 36, Family Code of the Philippines — Provides that a marriage is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity of a party to comply with the essential marital obligations. This was the substantive basis for the annulment.
• Articles 48 and 60, Family Code of the Philippines — Mandate the appearance of a prosecuting attorney in all cases of annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage, and legal separation to prevent collusion and ensure evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. The Court held these articles were not applicable to the adversarial proceedings in this case.
• Rule 38, Section 2, Revised Rules of Court — Governs petitions for relief from judgment on the grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The Court found the petitioner failed to meet its requirements.

• Justice Florenz D. Regalado (Ponente)
• Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero
• Justice Jose A. R. Melo
• Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. (on leave)