GOMEZ- ESTOESTA // APPRAC-A
BAÑADERA • CADIENTE •CARIAGA • CHENG • DE LUIS • DUEÑAS • ESCASURA • GARCIA • ORQUINAZA • RUBIO • SANTOS • YU
GROUNDS: EXTRINSIC FRAUD, ACCIDENT, MISTAKE,
EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE
CITY OF DAGUPAN v. MARAMBA (Bañadera)
[GR. No. 174411; July 2, 2014]
“Mistake so gross committed by the counsel can amount to
extrinsic fraud”
Recit-Ready:
Facts: Respondent Maramba filed a case for damages
against Petitioner Dagupan City for having her
commercial fishing center destroyed without notice.
The complaint was riddled with alterations to make
it look like the amount claimed is more than the
actual damages. The RTC granted the complaint and
awarded 10 million to Maramba. After the MR was
denied, a petition for relief from judgment was filed
subsequently alleging that it was the City Legal
Officer’s mistake that caused them to lose their case
and allowed Maramba to claim a huge amount of
money against them. The RTC however denied the
petition for relief of judgment. However, despite the
denial, the amount of damages claimed was still
reduced to 75,000. A petition for certiorari to the CA
was thereafter filed by Maramba. The CA held that
the lower court’s decision as to the amount was final
and executory. A Rule 45 petition was thereafter filed
to the SC.
Issue:
Whether the mistake of the City Legal Officer can be a
ground for granting the relief from judgment
Held:
Yes. Rule 38 Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court require that for a
petition for relief of judgment be granted there must be a
showing of either excusable negligence, fraud, accident, or
mistake. In this case, the mistake committed by the Legal
Officer of Dagupan City is so fatal considering the amount
awarded to Maramba. Such nature of mistake was so gross
that it constituted extrinsic fraud.
Facts:
 Respondent Ester F. Maramba was a grantee of a
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
miscellaneous lease contract for a 284-square-meter
property in Poblacion, Dagupan City.
o Sometime in 1974, she caused the construction
of a commercial fish center on the property.
 City of Dagupan caused the destruction of the commercial
fish center allegedly without giving direct notice to
Maramba and with threat of taking over the property.
 Maramba filed a case of damages against the City of
Dagupan. However, the values of actual damages claimed
by Maramba were suspiciously tampered.
o The commercial fish center was valued at the
amount of 10 million pesos with the word, “ten,”
handwritten on top of the word, “five.”
o In the complaint’s prayer, Maramba asked for a
judgment to pay plaintiff the amount of Ten
Thousand (P10,000.00) with word, “million,”
handwritten on top of the word, “thousand,” and
an additional zero was handwritten at the end of
the numerical figure.
 The RTC ruled in favor of Maramba and awarded him 10
million pesos.
 GOMEZ- ESTOESTA // APPRAC-A
BAÑADERA • CADIENTE •CARIAGA • CHENG • DE LUIS • DUEÑAS • ESCASURA • GARCIA • ORQUINAZA • RUBIO • SANTOS • YU
 City of Dagupan filed an MR. The MR was opposed by
Maramba claiming that that the motion was not set for
hearing.
 The RTC denied petitioner City’s motion for lack of notice
of time and place of hearing.
 The City of Dagupan thereafter filed a petition for relief
from judgment claiming that it was their City Legal
Officer’s mistake which caused them to lose their case.
The City of Dagupan faults its City Legal Officer by giving
Maramba much more than it was able to prove and allowed
the faulty decision to be implemented.
 The petition for relief was denied and the motion for
execution was granted. However, in the decision, the Judge
modified the amount of actual damages from 10 million to
75,000 pesos.
 Maramba then filed a petition for certiorari against the
Judge for modifying the amount of damages which was
already final and executory.
 The CA granted the certiorari of Maramba claiming that the
decision and amounts awarded to him was final and
executory. The MR at the CA was subsequently denied.
 Thereafter the City of Dagupan filed a Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Issue:
Whether the mistake of the City Legal Officer can be a ground
for granting the relief from judgment – YES
Held/Ratio: WHEREFORE, this Petition is GRANTED and the
challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.
Rule 38 Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court require that for a petition
for relief of judgment be granted there must be a showing of
either excusable negligence, fraud, or mistake. In this case,
the mistake committed by the Legal Officer of Dagupan City is
so fatal considering the amount awarded to Maramba. Such
nature of mistake was so gross that it constituted extrinsic
fraud.
o A Petition for Relief from Judgment under Sec. 1 of Rule
38 may be granted only upon showing the existence of
either fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE
o Excusable negligence as a ground for a petition for relief
requires that the negligence be so gross “that ordinary
diligence and prudence could not have guarded against
it.
o This excusable negligence must also be imputable to the
party-litigant and not to his or her counsel whose
negligence binds his or her client. The binding effect of
the counsel’s negligence ensures that clients cannot
simply be allowed to merely disown their counsels’
conduct. Exception to the binding character of the
counsel are:
 (1) where [the] reckless or gross negligence of
counsel deprives the client of due process of law;
 (2) when [the rule’s] application will result in
outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or
property; or
 (3) where the interests of justice so require.
FRAUD
o Pertains to extrinsic or collateral fraud.
o The extrinsic or collateral fraud must be such that it
prevented the unsuccessful party from fully and fairly
presenting his case or defense and the losing party from
having an adversarial trial of the issue.
 GOMEZ- ESTOESTA // APPRAC-A
BAÑADERA • CADIENTE •CARIAGA • CHENG • DE LUIS • DUEÑAS • ESCASURA • GARCIA • ORQUINAZA • RUBIO • SANTOS • YU

o Extrinsic fraud can be committed by a counsel against

his client when the latter is prevented from presenting
his case to the court such as when the lawyer sells out
the case.

MISTAKE
o Must be mistake of fact and not mistake of law.
o A wrong choice in legal strategy or mode of procedure
will not be considered a mistake for purposes of
granting a petition for relief from judgment. Similarly, a
judicial error is not a ground for petition for relief as it is
correctible by appeal
o Mistake can be of such nature as to cause substantial
injustice to one of the parties. It may be so palpable that
it borders on extrinsic fraud.

o In this case, the mistake committed by the Legal Officer

was fatal since it allowed Maramba to claim 11 million
worth of damages despite the fact that the records show
that Maramba was not able to testify and substantiate
the claim of actual damages amounting to 11 million
o Therefore, the gross disparity between the award of
actual damages and the amount actually proved during
the trial, the magnitude of the award, the nature of the
“mistake” made, and that such negligence did not
personally affect the legal officer of the city all
contributed to a conclusion that the mistake or
negligence committed by counsel bordered on extrinsic
fraud.