This is another case of a lawyer’s negligence that binds his client. The case stemmed from a complaint for partition, quieting of title, recovery of ownership and damages, over two parcels of land covered by Original Certificate of Title Nos. 1812 and 1630 owned by the deceased spouses Lauro and Rosa.
The complaint was filed by Lita and her seven other siblings (Lita’s group) against their brother Bert and three other siblings (Bert’s group) all of whom were the children of Lauro’s brother and the nearest of kin of the deceased couple.
Bert’s group claims ownership of the lot they are occupying which consists of one-half of the property covered by OCT 1630 by virtue of the deed of sale allegedly executed in their favor by Lauro. On the other hand Lita’s group claims ownership over the said portion of the subject property by virtue of a deed of donation executed in their favor by Rosa in February 1996.
During the pre-trial proceedings of the case, both parties, through their respective counsels, agreed that the only matter to be resolved was the validity of the absolute deed of sale which as claimed by Bert’s group was executed by Lauro in 1985. If said deed was valid, their counsel agreed that the subsequent deeds of donation executed by Rosa in favor of Lita’s group would be without force and effect. To determine the validity of the deed of sale, the parties also agreed that Lauro’s thumb mark affixed thereon shall be subjected to a dactylascopic examination by an NBI expert by comparing it with the specimen thumbmark of Lauro in his Voter’s Registration Record on file with the Office of the Election Registrar.
After examination upon orders of the court, the NBI found that the questioned fingerprint was not identical with the genuine specimen thumbmark. Hence the NBI concluded that the deed of sale was a spurious document.
So on September 18, 2007, the court ruled in favor of Lita’s group and ordered Bert’s group to vacate the said property as well as the partition of the remaining portion of the property covered by OCT 1630 and the entire land covered by OCT 1812 in equal shares.
In the belief that their counsel committed gross negligence in handling the case, Bert’s group asked the court for a new trial so they could present more evidence regarding the validity of the sale. They claimed that they are not too familiar with the niceties of the law and legal procedure. Hence they should not be bound by the mistakes and omissions of their counsel. Were they correct?
No. Both parties agreed to submit the questioned document to the NBI and be bound by its findings. There was nothing amiss in entering into such stipulations. Bert’s group only cried foul when the examination result turned out to be unfavorable to them. Granting that their counsel made a mistake in entering into such stipulations, said procedural error unfortunately bound them. The mistake or negligence of counsel in the area of procedural technique binds the client unless such mistake or negligence is so gross or palpable as would require the court to step in and accord relief to the client who suffered thereby (Urma vs. Beltran, G.R. 180836, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA, 373).
* * *
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net