EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 94457, October 16, 1997 ]
VICTORIA LEGARDA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NEW CATHAY HOUSE, INC., THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 94, RESPONDENTS.
SEPARATE, CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
KAPUNAN, J.:
I fully subscribe to the ruling of the Court nullifying for lack of due process the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City dated March 25, 1995 in Civil Case No. Q-43811, as well as the decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1989 in CA-G.R. No. SP-10487. The rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique. The exception to this rule is when the negligence of counsel, as here, is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court. (People’s Homesite & Housing Corp vs. Tiongco, 12 SCRA 471 [1964]; Escudero vs. Dulay, 158 SCRA 69 [1988]; De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan, 256 SCRA 171 [1996]), in which case, the remedy then is to reopen the case and allow the party who was denied his day in court to adduce his evidence.
The decision, however, is erroneous insofar as it directs private respondent New Cathay House, Inc. to effect the “reconveyance” of the property to petitioner. Reconveyance is a remedy of the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another but which recourse cannot be availed of if the property has passed to an innocent purchaser for value. Here, there has been no definite finding that New Cathay House, Inc. or its representative, Mr. Roberto V. Cabrera, Jr. has committed any wrongful, unlawful or fraudulent act which deprived petitioner of her land. As between two innocent parties, the one who made it possible for the wrong to be done should suffer the loss. Certainly, New Cathay House, Inc. cannot be made to suffer the loss by compelling it to reconvey the land to petitioner who lost her property due to the gross and inexcusable negligence of her counsel. Moreover, the remedy of reconveyance cannot be availed of if the property has passed to innocent third parties for value.
There being no legal ground to order New Cathay House, Inc. to reconvey the property to petitioner, the suggested alternative solution to direct Mr. Roberto V. Cabrera, Jr., the representative of New Cathay House, Inc. to turn over to petitioner the amount of P4 million he received from Nancy Saw has no leg to stand on, because, as already mentioned, there is yet no determination that he is a guilty party and, moreover, he cannot go against the transferees for indemnification or otherwise, if the subsequent transferees are innocent purchasers for value.
The nullification of the decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals is the necessary consequence of the finding that petitioner was deprived of her day in court by the gross and inexcusable negligence of her counsel and for the purpose of reopening of Civil Case No. Q-43811 (for specific performance with preliminary injunction and damages) to afford opportunity to petitioner to file her answer to the complaint and adduce evidence in her favor. The rights of the parties should be threshed out in the case, including the determination of whether or not the transferees of the property had acquired the same in good faith and for value, and the legal consequences and effects of such determination.
In view of the foregoing considerations, I vote to:
1. MODIFY the decision of March 18, 1991 by deleting portions thereof ordering: (a) private respondent New Cathay House, Inc. to reconvey the property to petitioner; and (b) the Register of Deeds to cancel the registration of the property in the name of private respondent and to issue a new one in the name of petitioner; and
2. REMAND the case to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, for further proceedings.ℒαwρhi৷
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
