8 - People Vs Bitanga
8 - People Vs Bitanga
II. Disagreeing with the CA, the People maintain that the acts and omissions imputed to said counsels amounted to
mere professional negligence which cannot be equated with extrinsic fraud in the absence of allegation and
evidence of malice.[29] The People point out that it was Bitanga's own act of jumping bail which did him in, for had he
showed up in court when summoned, he would not have lost the right to present his defense.
Extrinsic fraud is that perpetrated by the prevailing party, not by the unsuccessful party's own counsel. [31] As a
general rule, counsels ineptitude is not a ground to annul judgment, for the latter's management of the case binds
his client.[32] The rationale behind this rule is that, once retained, counsel holds the implied authority to do all acts
which are necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, and
any act performed by said counsel within the scope of such authority is, in the eyes of the law, regarded as the act of
the client himself.[33]
There is an exception to the foregoing rule, and that is when the negligence of counsel had been so egregious
that it prejudiced his clients interest and denied him his day in court. [34] For this exception to apply,
however, the gross negligence of counsel should not be accompanied by his clients own negligence or malice.
In the present case, the acts and omissions attributed to counsel amounted to negligence only, which cannot be
considered extrinsic fraud. Moreover, said counsels negligence was caused by Bitanga's act of jumping bail.
There appears to be no issue about how Atty. Razon represented Bitanga during the presentation of the
evidence of the prosecution. The CA itself noted that during said period, Atty. Razon conducted the cross-
examination and re-cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution. [39]
Problems arose only when it was Bitangas turn to present his defense. As noted by the CA, Atty. Razon failed to
attend the hearings scheduled on December 10, 1998, February 18, 1999, April 20, 1999, and May 25, 1999.[40] His
absences, however, appear to be justified.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The March 31, 2003 Decision and July 18, 2003 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
Notes
Extrinsic or collateral fraud is trickery practiced by the prevailing party upon the unsuccessful party, which prevents
the latter from fully proving his case. It affects not the judgment itself but the manner in which said judgment is
obtained
ONG
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/159222.htm