Title
Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 106153
Decision Date
Jul 14, 1997
Double sale of NHA lot; Bernardo denied due process due to counsel's death, negligence in substitution; Supreme Court upheld trial court, deleted damages for lack of evidence.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 106153)

Facts:

  1. Parties and Initial Proceedings:

    • On November 17, 1988, private respondent Jimmy Tomas filed a complaint for recovery of possession, quieting of title, and damages against petitioner Florencio Bernardo, the National Housing Authority (NHA), and other officials.
    • The case involved a double sale of a lot by the NHA to both Tomas and Bernardo.
  2. Representation and Death of Counsel:

    • Bernardo was initially represented by Atty. Jose B. Puerto of the law firm "Puerto Nuñez & Associates."
    • During the trial, Atty. Puerto passed away, but the law firm continued to represent Bernardo.
    • On February 5, 1991, neither Bernardo nor his counsel appeared in court. The court interpreter informed the judge that Atty. Puerto had died, but no official verification was provided.
  3. Trial Court’s Decision:

    • The trial court proceeded with the reception of evidence from Tomas and the NHA.
    • On June 7, 1991, Atty. Marcelo J. Abibas, Jr. filed a notice of appearance as Bernardo’s new counsel, mentioning Atty. Puerto’s death.
    • Without acting on the notice or receiving evidence from Bernardo, the trial court rendered a decision on June 11, 1991, in favor of Tomas.
  4. Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal:

    • Bernardo filed an Omnibus Motion for reconsideration, reopening of the case, and a new trial, arguing denial of due process.
    • The trial court denied the motion, citing Bernardo’s negligence in failing to inform the court of his counsel’s death.
    • Bernardo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which initially ruled in his favor but later reversed its decision upon reconsideration.
  5. Petition to the Supreme Court:

    • Bernardo filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition before the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals’ amended decision and resolution.

Issue:

  1. Whether the trial court denied due process to Bernardo by refusing to grant a new trial or reopen the case despite the death of his counsel and the failure to properly substitute counsel.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing its original decision and affirming the trial court’s ruling.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ amended decision, with the modification that the award of damages to Tomas was deleted. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the client’s duty to actively participate in their case.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.