5. ACENAS V.
SISON o Counsel for defendants asked that the confession of judgment by the
8 SCRA 711
AUGUST 30, 1963
By: JUSTINE LIMJOCO
Petitioners: EMMA S. ACENAS AND ALBERTO E. ACENAS
Respondents: ANGELA SISON AND TEOFILO SISON
Ponente: REGALA, J.
RECIT-READY: Petitioner filed an action against respondent Angela Sison’s
failure to pay based on a promissory note she executed. Her husband joined in
her suit. During the hearing for the case, counsel for defendant asked that the
confession of judgment be entered even if he had no authority to do so. The
Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in accepting the confession made
by the counsel without authority by his client.
DOCTRINE: A confession of judgment made by the attorney without the client’s special
authority may be set aside.
FACTS
 On September 1956, Angela Sison executed a promissory note, promising to pay
Emma Acenas the sum of P8,160 in 26 installments, the first falling due on
November 30, 1956, and the last on November 30, 1960.
 The note provided that failure to pay two consecutive installments would make
the balance due and demandable.
 Mrs. Sison was able to pay up to August 31, 1957 only.
 Upon her failure to pay the balance, petitioners filed an action. Pursuant to Article
113 of the Old Civil Code, her husband, Teofilo Sison joined as defendant.
 In their answer, Mr. Sison denied liability on the ground that he had not signed the
promissory note.
 The case was set for hearing on March 7, 1960. The events for that day were as
follows:
o Counsel for defendants moved for the postponement of the hearing due to
the absence of his clients. He asked for more time in order to amicably settle
the case.
o Counsel for the plaintiffs objected on the ground that the defendants have
been given sufficient time to settle the case.
o When the court indicated to the defendant’s counsel that they have no
defense, and that it would be for their best interest to terminate the case by
way of judgment on the pleadings or confession of judgment, counsel for
defendants offered no objection.
defendants be entered in this case providing that the corresponding writ of
execution should not be issued until June 30, 1960. Counsel for plaintiffs
agreed.
o Therefore, the motion for confession of judgment was granted.
o Judgment was rendered ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay
the plaintiffs.
 Defendants then appealed directly to this Court.
 Teofilo Sison contends that his lawyer agreed to a judgment on the pleadings, but
not to a confession of judgment. He further states that he never authorized his
lawyer to confess judgment for him, and that he was not liable for the note of his
wife.
 The court then found that Atty. Nicanor Sison, counsel for the spouses Sison,
agreed to a judgment on confession against his clients, provided no writ of
execution was issued until June 30, 1960. But records show that he never had the
authority to confess judgment.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Sison’s confession of judgment without his client’s special
authority may be set aside
HELD/RATIO: YES.
The Court held that it was the error of the trial court to accept confession made by
counsel without ascertaining his authority.
The Court held in Natividad v. Natividad that the compromise of causes and confession
of judgments may not be effected by counsel without special authority, and that no
agreement to permit judgment to be entered against his client be authorized except
with the knowledge and at the instance of the latter. Such judgment may be set aside or
reopened.
In the present case, the attorney of the defendant was not requesting to collect or
enforce his client's claim, but was resisting a suit or claim against his client and
consented to the credit in favor of the latter.
In contrast, Section 21 of Rule 1271 expressly requires that attorneys have special
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.
1
The current provision in the Rules of Court:
Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 23