Lawyerly

GR No. 194751

2014-11-26

AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, J.

A petition for annulment of judgment is a recourse that is equitable in character.[111] It is independent of the case[112] and is "allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy."[113]

GR No. 194751

2014-11-26

AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

LEONEN, J.

As this court explained in Macalalag v. Ombudsman:[116]

GR No. 161122

2012-09-24

DARE ADVENTURE FARM CORPORATION v. CA

BERSAMIN, J.

A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud.[8] Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions.[9] The Court has thus instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing in Section 1[10] of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the petitioner should show that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.[11] A petition for annulment that ignores or disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper.

GR No. 147082

2008-01-28

HEIRS OF MAURA SO v. vs.LUCILA JOMOC OBLIOSCA

NACHURA, J.

First, annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[19] Thus, it may not be invoked (1) where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedy and lost; or (2) where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.[20] We, therefore, agree with the CA that the remedy of a petition for annulment of judgment is no longer available to petitioners since their predecessor-in-interest, Maura So, had already availed herself of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

GR NO. 159222

2007-06-26

PEOPLE v. RAFAEL BITANGA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

There is no basis in law or the rules, therefore, to extend the scope of Rule 47 to criminal cases. As we explained in Macalalag v. Ombudsman,[18] when there is no law or rule providing for this remedy, recourse to it cannot be allowed, viz.:Parenthetically, R.A. 6770 is silent on the remedy of annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. In Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario, the Court has held that since The Ombudsman Act specifically deals with the remedy of an aggrieved party from orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only, the right to appeal is not to be considered granted to parties aggrieved by orders and decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases. The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of law. There must then be a law expressly granting such right. This legal axiom is also applicable and even more true in actions for annulment of judgments which is an exception to the rule on finality of judgments.[19]

GR NO. 153456

2007-03-02

ROBERTO PADUA v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

We reiterate that a petition for annulment of judment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court may be availed of against final judgments and orders rendered by either RTCs in civil actions[20] or Municipal Trial Courts[21] (MTCs).[22] Final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial tribunals such as the National Labor Relations Commission,[23] the Ombudsman,[24] the Civil Service Commission,[25] and the OP[26] are beyond the reach of a petition for annulment under Rule 47. An order of the DAR Secretary issued in the exercise of his quasi-judicial powers is also outside its scope. Justice Jose C. Vitug, in Macalalag v. Ombudsman,[27] explained the rationale behind the limited application of Rule 47, to wit:The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of law. There must then be a law expressly granting such right. This legal axiom is also applicable and even more true in actions for annulment of judgments which is an exception to the rule on finality of judgments. [28]

GR NO. 150207

2007-02-23

VALENTIN P. FRAGINAL v. HEIRS OF TORIBIA BELMONTE PARAÑAL

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

First, it sought the annulment of the PARAD Decision when Section 1 of Rule 47 clearly limits the subject matter of petitions for annulment to final judgments and orders rendered by Regional Trial Courts in civil actions.[17] Final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial tribunals or administrative bodies such as the National Labor Relations Commission,[18] the Ombudsman,[19] the Civil Service Commission,[20] the Office of the President,[21] and, in this case, the PARAD, are not susceptible to petitions for annulment under Rule 47.

GR NO. 142628

2007-02-06

SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Although the grounds set forth in the petition for annulment of judgment are fraud and lack of jurisdiction, said petition cannot prosper for the simple reason that the decision sought to be annulled was not rendered by the Regional Trial Court but by an administrative agency (HLU Arbiter and Office of the President), hence, not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. There is no such remedy as annulment of judgment of the HLURB or the Office of the President. Assuming arguendo that the annulment petition can be treated as a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the same should have been dismissed by the Court of Appeals, because no error of judgment was imputed to the HLURB and the Office of the President. Fraud and lack of jurisdiction are beyond the province of petitions under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as it covers only errors of judgment. A petition for annulment of judgment is an initiatory remedy, hence no error of judgment can be the subject thereof. Besides, the Arbiter and the Office of the President indisputably have jurisdiction over the cases brought before them in line with our ruling in Francisco Sycip, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, promulgated on March 17, 2000, where the aggrieved townhouse buyers may seek protection from the HLURB under Presidential Decree No. 957, otherwise known as "Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree."[33] (Emphasis supplied) In Macalalag v. Ombudsman,[34] the Court ruled that Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions covers "annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies could no longer be availed of through no fault of the petitioner." Thus, the Court concluded that judgments or final orders and resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases cannot be annulled by the CA, more so, since The Ombudsman Act specifically deals with the remedy of an aggrieved party from orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only, and the right to appeal is not to be considered granted to parties aggrieved by orders and decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.

GR No. 141241

2005-11-22

REPUBLIC v. 'G' HOLDINGS

CORONA, J.

A petition for annulment of judgment is an extraordinary action.[9] By virtue of its exceptional character, the action is restricted exclusively to the grounds specified in the rules,[10] namely, (1) extrinsic fraud and (2) lack of jurisdiction.[11] The rationale for the restriction is to prevent the extraordinary action from being used by a losing party to make a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision that has long become final and executory.[12] The remedy may not be invoked where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedy and lost, or where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.[13]

GR NO. 139448

2005-10-11

JACINTO GALANG v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Rule 47 on annulment of judgments is a new provision under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure albeit the remedy has long been given imprimatur by the courts.[38] It covers only the judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts[39] and not those of the SEC. In fact, Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, only vests in the Court of Appeals "exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts."[40]

GR No. 159636

2004-11-25

VICTORY LINER v. ROSALITO GAMMAD

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Similarly, in Macalalag v. Ombudsman,[32] a Philippine Postal Corporation employee charged with dishonesty was not able to file an answer and position paper. He was found guilty solely on the basis of complainant's evidence and was dismissed with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from government service. Challenging the decision of the Ombudsman, the employee contended that the gross negligence of his counsel deprived him of due process of law. In debunking his contention, the Court said

	GR No. 194751 2014-11-26	AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
A petition for annulment of judgment is a recourse that is equitable in character.[111] It is independent of the case[112] and is "allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy."[113]
	GR No. 194751 2014-11-26	AURORA N. DE PEDRO v. ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
As this court explained in Macalalag v. Ombudsman:[116]
	GR No. 161122 2012-09-24	DARE ADVENTURE FARM CORPORATION v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud.[8] Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions.[9] The Court has thus instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing in Section 1[10] of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the petitioner should show that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.[11] A petition for annulment that ignores or disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper.
	GR No. 147082 2008-01-28	HEIRS OF MAURA SO v. vs.LUCILA JOMOC OBLIOSCA NACHURA, J.
First, annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy.[19] Thus, it may not be invoked (1) where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedy and lost; or (2) where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.[20] We, therefore, agree with the CA that the remedy of a petition for annulment of judgment is no longer available to petitioners since their predecessor-in-interest, Maura So, had already availed herself of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
	GR NO. 159222 2007-06-26	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL BITANGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is no basis in law or the rules, therefore, to extend the scope of Rule 47 to criminal cases. As we explained in Macalalag v. Ombudsman,[18] when there is no law or rule providing for this remedy, recourse to it cannot be allowed, viz.:Parenthetically, R.A. 6770 is silent on the remedy of annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases. In Tirol, Jr. v. Del Rosario, the Court has held that since The Ombudsman Act specifically deals with the remedy of an aggrieved party from orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only, the right to appeal is not to be considered granted to parties aggrieved by orders and decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases. The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of law. There must then be a law expressly granting such right. This legal axiom is also applicable and even more true in actions for annulment of judgments which is an exception to the rule on finality of judgments.[19]
	GR NO. 153456 2007-03-02	ROBERTO PADUA v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We reiterate that a petition for annulment of judment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court may be availed of against final judgments and orders rendered by either RTCs in civil actions[20] or Municipal Trial Courts[21] (MTCs).[22] Final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial tribunals such as the National Labor Relations Commission,[23] the Ombudsman,[24] the Civil Service Commission,[25] and the OP[26] are beyond the reach of a petition for annulment under Rule 47. An order of the DAR Secretary issued in the exercise of his quasi-judicial powers is also outside its scope. Justice Jose C. Vitug, in Macalalag v. Ombudsman,[27] explained the rationale behind the limited application of Rule 47, to wit:The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of law. There must then be a law expressly granting such right. This legal axiom is also applicable and even more true in actions for annulment of judgments which is an exception to the rule on finality of judgments. [28]
	GR NO. 150207 2007-02-23	VALENTIN P. FRAGINAL v. HEIRS OF TORIBIA BELMONTE PARAÑAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
First, it sought the annulment of the PARAD Decision when Section 1 of Rule 47 clearly limits the subject matter of petitions for annulment to final judgments and orders rendered by Regional Trial Courts in civil actions.[17] Final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial tribunals or administrative bodies such as the National Labor Relations Commission,[18] the Ombudsman,[19] the Civil Service Commission,[20] the Office of the President,[21] and, in this case, the PARAD, are not susceptible to petitions for annulment under Rule 47.
	GR NO. 142628 2007-02-06	SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Although the grounds set forth in the petition for annulment of judgment are fraud and lack of jurisdiction, said petition cannot prosper for the simple reason that the decision sought to be annulled was not rendered by the Regional Trial Court but by an administrative agency (HLU Arbiter and Office of the President), hence, not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. There is no such remedy as annulment of judgment of the HLURB or the Office of the President. Assuming arguendo that the annulment petition can be treated as a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the same should have been dismissed by the Court of Appeals, because no error of judgment was imputed to the HLURB and the Office of the President. Fraud and lack of jurisdiction are beyond the province of petitions under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as it covers only errors of judgment. A petition for annulment of judgment is an initiatory remedy, hence no error of judgment can be the subject thereof. Besides, the Arbiter and the Office of the President indisputably have jurisdiction over the cases brought before them in line with our ruling in Francisco Sycip, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, promulgated on March 17, 2000, where the aggrieved townhouse buyers may seek protection from the HLURB under Presidential Decree No. 957, otherwise known as "Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree."[33] (Emphasis supplied) In Macalalag v. Ombudsman,[34] the Court ruled that Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions covers "annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies could no longer be availed of through no fault of the petitioner." Thus, the Court concluded that judgments or final orders and resolutions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases cannot be annulled by the CA, more so, since The Ombudsman Act specifically deals with the remedy of an aggrieved party from orders, directives and decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only, and the right to appeal is not to be considered granted to parties aggrieved by orders and decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.
	GR No. 141241 2005-11-22	REPUBLIC v. 'G' HOLDINGS CORONA, J.
A petition for annulment of judgment is an extraordinary action.[9] By virtue of its exceptional character, the action is restricted exclusively to the grounds specified in the rules,[10] namely, (1) extrinsic fraud and (2) lack of jurisdiction.[11] The rationale for the restriction is to prevent the extraordinary action from being used by a losing party to make a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision that has long become final and executory.[12] The remedy may not be invoked where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedy and lost, or where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.[13]
	GR NO. 139448 2005-10-11	JACINTO GALANG v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Rule 47 on annulment of judgments is a new provision under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure albeit the remedy has long been given imprimatur by the courts.[38] It covers only the judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts[39] and not those of the SEC. In fact, Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, only vests in the Court of Appeals "exclusive jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts."[40]
	GR No. 159636 2004-11-25	VICTORY LINER v. ROSALITO GAMMAD YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Similarly, in Macalalag v. Ombudsman,[32] a Philippine Postal Corporation employee charged with dishonesty was not able to file an answer and position paper. He was found guilty solely on the basis of complainant's evidence and was dismissed with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from government service. Challenging the decision of the Ombudsman, the employee contended that the gross negligence of his counsel deprived him of due process of law. In debunking his contention, the Court said

JESSIE MACALALAG v. OMBUDSMAN