ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 140309. January 19, 2000]

ARSENIA T. BERGONIA vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 19 2000.

G.R. No. 140309 (Arsenia T. Bergonia vs. Court of Appeals and Gretchen V. Parayno, etc.)

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated September 30, 1999 which denied the petitioner's Motion for New Trial and/or Reception of New Evidence.

On October 15, 1996, the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan rendered a decision against petitioner ordering her to vacate the property subject of the case and surrender possession to private respondent. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. However, petitioner's counsel failed to submit the appeal brief resulting in the dismissal of the case. Petitioner posits that this entitles her to a new trial and that she should be allowed to present additional evidence.

Finding no reversible error on the part of respondent Court of Appeals, we resolved to dismiss the appeal.

Petitioner failed to file her appellant's brief within the allowed period despite several extensions given her. A client is bound by the negligence of her counsel (Diaz-Duarte v. Ong, 298 SCRA 388 [1998]). True, the ruled do not favor technicalities over substance. However, when a party fails to observe very elementary ruled of procedure, we cannot exculpate her from its effects. Such would undermine the stability of the juducial process. We cannot open the door to situations where we will be asked to decide when to bend the rules and when to abide by them (Tan v. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 755 [1998]). More importantly, petitioner cites no compelling reason for us to reverse the Court of Appeals' resolution. The requisites before newly discovered evidence can be admitted were not established or even pleaded. These are: (1) the evidence is discovered after trial; (2) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (3) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and of such weight that, if admitted, would probably change the judgment (People v. Tirona, 300 SCRA 431 [1998]).

Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

The appearance with motion for leave of court to admit petition for review on certiorari filed by Atty. Victor Volfango as new counsel for petitioner is NOTED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE