EMMA S. ACENAS and ALBERTO E. ACENAS vs.

ANGELA SISON and TEOFILO SISON HELD:

No. L-17011. August 30, 1963 NO. The confession of judgment was not valid having been unauthorized by the client.
Regala J.
In contrast, Section 21 of Rule 127 expressly requires that attorneys have special
DOCTRINE: Authority to confess judgment for client must be clear. authority not only to receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full
amount in cash but also to compromise their client's litigation.
FACTS:
Angela Sison executed a promissory note, We hold therefore that it was error for the trial court to accept the confession made
promising to pay Emma S. Acenas the sum of P8,160 in 26 installments, the first falling by counsel without ascertaining his authority to do so, at least with respect to Teofilo
due on November 30,1956 and the last on November 30, 1960. The note provided Sison. With respect to Angela Sison, however, the judgment will be maintained, there
that failure to pay two consecutive installments would make the balance due and being no claim in this appeal that the confession of judgment made in her behalf was
demandable. unauthorized. In fact her liability is admitted here.

Mrs. Sison was able to pay up to August 31, 1957 only. Upon her failure to pay the
balance of the note, alleged to be in the sum of P8,391.60, she was sued. Her husband,
Teofilo Sison, was joined as a defendant pursuant to Article 113 of the Civil Code.

Mr. Sison denied liability on the ground that he had not signed the promissory note.

During trial, the defendants were absent. Their lawyers moved to postponed which
the plaintiffs opposed. On the other hand, when the court indicated to the defendant's
counsel that there seems to be no defense on the part of the defendants in this case,
and that it would be for the best interest of the latter if the case is terminated by way
of judgment on the pleadings or confession of judgment, counsel for defendants
offered no objection and asked that confession of judgment by the defendants may
be entered in 'this case provided that the corresponding writ of execution thereof
should not be issued until June 30, 1960, to which counsel for the plaintiffs agreed.

The trial court then ruled for the plaintiffs Sisons.

On appeal, records do not show that the petitioners’ counsel on that case was
authorized to agree on a judgment on confession. On the contrary, the decision of
March 7, 1960 states that Atty. Sison "moved for the postponement of the hearing
hereof in view of the absence of his clients and that he needs time within which to
confer with them for the purpose of amicably settling this case." This indicates that
Atty. Sison lacked authority to confess judgment, otherwise, there would have been
no need for him to confer with his clients. This circumstance should have put the trial
court on an inquiry as, to counsel's authority.

ISSUE: Whether the confession of judgment made by petitioners counsel was valid.