10/2/21, 7:47 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 888

G.R. No. 233135. December 5, 2018.*

B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC., petitioner, vs. MANUEL A.S.

BERNARDO, respondent.

Attorneys; Legal Ethics; The general rule is that the negligence

of counsel binds the client, even mistakes in the application of
procedural rules, an exception to this doctrine is when the
negligence of counsel is so gross that the due process rights of the
client were violated.—The general rule is that the negligence of
counsel binds the client, even mistakes in the application of
procedural rules, an exception to this doctrine is when the
negligence of counsel is so gross that the due process rights of the
client were violated. In this case, the manner with which the Law
Office of Ramirez Lazaro & Associates Law handled the case of
petitioner, as a collaborating counsel shows gross negligence and
utter incompetence, when it failed to attach a Notice of Hearing
when it filed the motion for reconsideration before the RTC on
October 4, 2010, and antedated the filing thereof to make it
appear that it was filed on time. As a result thereof, the RTC in
an Order dated December 10, 2010, denied the motion for
reconsideration and considered the same as a mere scrap of paper.
Worst, the August 13, 2010 Decision of the RTC lapsed into
finality. Thus, petitioner lost its right to appeal the Decision and
petitioner’s petition for relief was denied. Clearly, the rights of
petitioner were deprived due to its collaborating counsel’s
palpable negligence and thereof is not bound by it.

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

564

564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Bernardo

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c40d9b24b18e5620e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/10
10/2/21, 7:47 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 888

Procedural Rules and Technicalities; It is settled in Our

jurisprudence that procedural rules were conceived to aid the
attainment of justice.—Contrary to findings of the RTC and the
CA, petitioner exercised due diligence in monitoring the case it
filed. Petitioner even inquired with the Law Office of Ramirez
Lazaro & Associates Law and informed it that the motion for
reconsideration was duly filed. As far as petitioner is concerned
and in respect of its interest, its duty to be vigilant to the status of
the case was complied with by being updated on the progress of
the case. While the Court applauds the RTC’s and CA’s
zealousness in upholding procedural rules, it cannot simply allow
petitioner to be deprived of its property due to the gross
negligence of its collaborating counsel. It is settled in Our
jurisprudence that procedural rules were conceived to aid the
attainment of justice. If a stringent application of the procedural
rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial
justice, the former must yield to the latter. We allowed liberal
application of technical rules of procedure, pertaining to the
requisites of a proper notice of hearing, upon consideration of the
importance of the subject matter of the controversy, as illustrated
in the cases of City of Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority,
656 SCRA 102 (2011).
Same; Procedural rules may be relaxed in order to prevent
injustice to a litigant.—“[T]he rule, which states that the mistakes
of counsel bind the client, may not be strictly followed where
observance of it would result in the outright deprivation of the
client’s liberty or property, or where the interest of justice so
requires.” Simply put, procedural rules may be relaxed in order to
prevent injustice to a litigant. In sum, the Court deems it
appropriate to relax the technical rules of procedure in order to
afford petitioner the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of
its appeal, rather than to deprive it of such right and make it lose
his property.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Salomon & Gonong Law Offices for petitioner.
Edgardo V. Cruz for respondent.

565

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 565

B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Bernardo

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c40d9b24b18e5620e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/10
10/2/21, 7:47 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 888

TIJAM, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court filed by B.E. San Diego Inc. (petitioner),
seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision2 dated April 3,
2017 and the Resolution3 dated July 17, 2017 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 142759, which
affirmed the Decision4 dated October 20, 2014 and the
Order5 dated July 30, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 75, in Civil Case No. 19-
V-12, that denied petitioner’s petition for relief and motion
for reconsideration, respectively.

Antecedent Facts

Sometime in December 1992, petitioner sold an 8,773-

square-meter parcel of land (subject property) located in
Arkong Bato, Valenzuela City, on installment to Manuel
A.S. Bernardo (respondent) for a total purchase price of
Nine Million Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Three Hundred
Pesos (P9,650,300.00).6
Pursuant to their agreement, respondent paid an initial
amount of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000.00) to
petitioner, and the remaining balance of Six Million Six
Hundred Fifty Thousand Three Hundred Pesos
(P6,650,300.00) to be paid in 36 monthly installments of
One Hundred Eighty-Four Thou-

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 9-27.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, concurred in by
Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Renato C. Francisco; id., at pp.
30-37.
3 Id., at pp. 61-62.
4 Rendered by Presiding Judge Lilia Mercedes Encarnacion A. Gepty;
id., at pp. 132-138.
5 Id., at pp. 145-146.
6 Id., at p. 31.

566

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Bernardo

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c40d9b24b18e5620e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/10
10/2/21, 7:47 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 888

sand Seven Hundred Thirty Pesos and Fifty-Six Centavos

(P184,730.56).7
Respondent paid an aggregate amount of Two Million
Fifty-Four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P2,054,500.00)
but failed to pay the remainder of the purchase price
balance as they become due. Hence, on March 29, 1996,
petitioner advised respondent of its intent to cancel their
agreement of sale and demanded respondent to vacate the
subject property.8
Petitioner’s demand remained unheeded, it then filed an
action for Cancellation of Contract and Restitution of the
Premises before the RTC docketed as Civil Case No. 5088-
V-96.9
The RTC in a Decision10 dated August 13, 2010,
dismissed the complaint and ratiocinated that petitioner
failed to provide respondent a grace period of sixty (60)
days to pay the installments due as governed by sales on
installment of the Maceda Law.
The said RTC’s Decision was received by petitioner’s
counsel on record on September 30, 2010.
On October 4, 2010, petitioner, through a new
collaborating counsel — Ramirez Lazaro & Associates Law
Office filed a Motion for Reconsideration11 of the RTC’s
Decision dated August 13, 2010 without a Notice of
Hearing. On October 15, 2010 or eleven (11) days
thereafter, petitioner’s new collaborating counsel
sent via registered mail a Notice of Hearing,12 which stated
that the date of hearing was set on October 29, 2010 at 8:30
a.m.

_______________

7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id., at pp. 64-73.
11 Id., at pp. 74-88.
12 Id., at pp. 89-90.

567

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 567

B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Bernardo

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c40d9b24b18e5620e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/10
10/2/21, 7:47 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 888

On December 10, 2010 Order13 of the RTC, denied the

motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner’s new
collaborating counsel and considered the same as a mere
scrap of paper. The RTC found that there was antedating
in the Notice of Hearing filed to make it appear that the
same was filed within the fifteen (15)-day reglementary
period, and that there was dishonesty and scheme
employed on the part of the petitioner’s new collaborating
counsel in the separate filing of the Notice of Hearing.14
Consequently, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal15 but
the RTC in an Order16 dated February 11, 2011 denied the
same for having been filed beyond the reglementary period.
Meanwhile, the RTC’s Decision17 dated August 13, 2010
lapsed into finality.
Accordingly, on September 6, 2011, petitioner filed a
Petition for Relief18 from the Order dated February 11,
2011 before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 19-V-12
and asseverated that the gross and palpable negligence of
its new collaborating counsel should not bind and prejudice
the petitioner.
Trial on the merits ensued and thereafter, on October
20, 2014, the RTC in Civil Case No. 19-V-12 issued a
Decision19 denying the Petition for Relief, to wit:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition for

relief from judgment is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.20

_______________

13 Id., at pp. 92-94.

14 Id., at p. 93.
15 Id., at p. 95.
16 Id., at pp. 97-98.
17 Id., at pp. 64-73.
18 Id., at pp. 110-127.
19 Id., at pp. 132-138.

568

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Bernardo

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration21 was denied for

lack of merit by the RTC in an Order22 dated July 30, 2015.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c40d9b24b18e5620e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/10
10/2/21, 7:47 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 888

Then, petitioner duly filed a petition for certiorari before

the CA.23
On April 3, 2017, the CA rendered a Decision24 which
affirmed the RTC’s denial of petitioner’s petition for relief,
the dispositive portion of the Decision provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition

for Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 20
October 2015 and Order dated 30 July 2015 of the [RTC],
Branch 75, Valenzuela City, are SUSTAINED.
SO ORDERED.25

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration26 was likewise

denied in a CA’s Resolution27 dated July 17, 2017.
Hence, the instant petition.

Ruling of the Court

The petition is meritorious.

The general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds
the client, even mistakes in the application of procedural
rules, an exception to this doctrine is when the negligence
of counsel is so gross that the due process rights of the
client were violated.28

_______________

20 Id., at p. 138.
21 Id., at pp. 139-144.
22 Id., at pp. 145-146.
23 Id., at pp. 147-164.
24 Id., at pp. 30-37.
25 Id., at pp. 36-37.
26 Id., at pp. 38-44.
27 Id., at pp. 61-62.
28 Ong Lay Hin v. Court of Appeals, 752 Phil. 15, 25; 748 SCRA 198,
208 (2015).

569

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 569

B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Bernardo

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c40d9b24b18e5620e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/10
10/2/21, 7:47 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 888

In this case, the manner with which the Law Office of

Ramirez Lazaro & Associates Law handled the case of
petitioner, as a collaborating counsel shows gross
negligence and utter incompetence, when it failed to attach
a Notice of Hearing when it filed the motion for
reconsideration before the RTC on October 4, 2010, and
antedated the filing thereof to make it appear that it was
filed on time. As a result thereof, the RTC in an Order
dated December 10, 2010, denied the motion for
reconsideration and considered the same as a mere scrap of
paper. Worst, the August 13, 2010 Decision of the RTC
lapsed into finality. Thus, petitioner lost its right to appeal
the Decision and petitioner’s petition for relief was denied.
Clearly, the rights of petitioner were deprived due to its
collaborating counsel’s palpable negligence and thereof is
not bound by it.
Also, contrary to findings of the RTC and the CA,
petitioner exercised due diligence in monitoring the case it
filed. Petitioner even inquired with the Law Office of
Ramirez Lazaro & Associates Law and informed it that the
motion for reconsideration was duly filed. As far as
petitioner is concerned and in respect of its interest, its
duty to be vigilant to the status of the case was complied
with by being updated on the progress of the case.
While the Court applauds the RTC’s and CA’s
zealousness in upholding procedural rules, it cannot simply
allow petitioner to be deprived of its property due to the
gross negligence of its collaborating counsel.
It is settled in Our jurisprudence that procedural rules
were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a
stringent application of the procedural rules would hinder
rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the
former must yield to the latter.
We allowed liberal application of technical rules of
procedure, pertaining to the requisites of a proper notice of
hearing, upon consideration of the importance of the
subject mat-

570

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Bernardo

ter of the controversy, as illustrated in the cases of City of

Dumaguete v. Philippine Ports Authority,29 to wit:

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c40d9b24b18e5620e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/10
10/2/21, 7:47 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 888

The liberal construction of the rules on notice of hearing

is exemplified in Goldloop Properties, Inc. v. CA:

Admittedly, the filing of respondent-spouses’

motion for reconsideration did not stop the running of
the period of appeal because of the absence of a notice
of hearing required in Secs. 3, 4 and 5, Rule 15, of the
Rules of Court. As we have repeatedly held, a motion
that does not contain a notice of hearing is a mere
scrap of paper; it presents no question which merits
the attention of the court. Being a mere scrap of
paper, the trial court had no alternative but to
disregard it. Such being the case, it was as if no
motion for reconsideration was filed and, therefore,
the reglementary period within which respondent-
spouses should have filed an appeal expired on 23
November 1989.
But, where a rigid application of that rule will
result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice,
then the rule may be relaxed, especially if a party
successfully shows that the alleged defect in the
questioned final and executory judgment is not
apparent on its face or from the recitals contained
therein. Technicalities may thus be disregarded
in order to resolve the case. After all, no party
can even claim a vested right in technicalities.
Litigations should, as much as possible, be
decided on the merits and not on technicalities.
Hence, this Court should not easily allow a party to
lose title and ownership over a party worth
P4,000,000.00 for a measly

_______________

29 671 Phil. 610; 656 SCRA 102 (2011).

571

VOL. 888, DECEMBER 5, 2018 571

B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Bernardo

P650,000.00 without affording him ample opportunity

to prove his claim that the transaction entered into
was not in fact an absolute sale but one of mortgage.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c40d9b24b18e5620e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/10
10/2/21, 7:47 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 888

Such grave injustice must not be permitted to prevail

on the anvil of technicalities.
Likewise, in Samoso v. CA, the Court ruled:
But time and again, the Court has stressed that
the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very
strict and technical sense. The rules of procedure are
used only to help secure not override substantial
justice (National Waterworks & Sewerage System v.
Municipality of Libmanan, 97 SCRA 138 [1980];
Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA 120 [1976]).
The right to appeal should not be lightly
disregarded by a stringent application of rules
of procedure especially where the appeal is on
its face meritorious and the interests of
substantial justice would be served by
permitting the appeal (Siguenza v. Court of
Appeals, 137 SCRA 570 [1985]; Pacific Asia Overseas
Shipping Corporation v. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al., G.R. No. 76595, May 6, 1998).30
(Emphasis in the original)

“[T]he rule, which states that the mistakes of counsel

bind the client, may not be strictly followed where
observance of it would result in the outright deprivation of
the client’s liberty or property, or where the interest of
justice so requires.”31

_______________

30 Id., at pp. 627-628; p. 118, citing Basco v. Court of Appeals, 392 Phil.
251, 266-267; 326 SCRA 768, 784-785 (2000).
31 Curammeng v. People, 199 Phil. 575, 582-583; 808 SCRA 613, 622
(2016).

572

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Bernardo

Simply put, procedural rules may be relaxed in order to

prevent injustice to a litigant.
In sum, the Court deems it appropriate to relax the
technical rules of procedure in order to afford petitioner the
fullest opportunity to establish the merits of its appeal,

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c40d9b24b18e5620e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/10
10/2/21, 7:47 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 888

rather than to deprive it of such right and make it lose his

property.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
Decision dated April 3, 2017 and the Resolution dated July
17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
142759 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
instant case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela City, Branch 75, for proper resolution of the
case on its merits.
SO ORDERED.

Bersamin (CJ., Chairperson), Del Castillo, Jardeleza

and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside. Case remanded to Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela City, Br. 75.

Notes.—It is true that procedural rules may be waived

or dispensed with in the interest of substantial justice.
(Dreamland Hotel Resort vs. Johnson, 719 SCRA 29 [2014])
The general rule is that the negligence of counsel binds
the client, even mistakes in the application of procedural
rules. The exception to the rule is “when the reckless or
gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due
process of law.” (Ong Lay Hin vs. Court of Appeals, 748
SCRA 198 [2015])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c40d9b24b18e5620e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/10