Lawyerly

GR No. 159926

2014-01-20

PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE v. FAR EAST BANK

BERSAMIN, J.

The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented the petitioner from having his day in court.[35] Nonetheless, extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.[36]

GR No. 163602

2011-09-07

SPS. EULOGIA MANILA v. SPS. EDERLINDA GALLARDO-MANZO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We are not persuaded by respondents' asseveration. They could have directly followed up the status of their case with the RTC especially during the period of Atty. Atienza's hospital confinement. As party litigants, they should have constantly monitored the progress of their case. Having completely entrusted their case to their former counsel and believing his word that everything is alright, they have no one to blame but themselves when it turned out that their opportunity to appeal and other remedies from the adverse ruling of the RTC could no longer be availed of due to their counsel's neglect. That respondents continued to rely on the services of their counsel notwithstanding his chronic ailments that had him confined for long periods at the hospital is unthinkable. Such negligence of counsel is binding on the client, especially when the latter offered no plausible explanation for his own inaction. The Court has held that when a party retains the services of a lawyer, he is bound by his counsel's actions and decisions regarding the conduct of the case. This is true especially where he does not complain against the manner his counsel handles the suit.[14] The oft-repeated principle is that an action for annulment of judgment cannot and is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.[15]

GR No. 165333

2010-02-09

REPUBLIC v. TECHNOLOGICAL ADVOCATES FOR AGRO-FOREST PROGRAMS ASSOCIATION

PERALTA, J.

Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the only grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[30] It is absence of, or no, jurisdiction; that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter.

GR No. 176906

2009-08-04

ANDREW B. NUDO v. AMADO S. CAGUIOA

NACHURA, J.

An action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy, which is not to be granted indiscriminately by the Court. It is a recourse equitable in character allowed only in exceptional cases. The reason for the restriction is to prevent this 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.[15] Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the only grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[16]

GR No. 166734

2009-07-03

MANDY COMMODITIES CO. v. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA

PERALTA, J.

The grounds for a petition for annulment are in themselves specific in the same way that the relief itself is. The Rules restrict the grounds only to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud[40] to prevent the remedy from being used by a losing party in making a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision or a duly issued order or resolution that has long attained finality.[41] This certainly is based on sound public policy for litigations and, despite occasional risks of error, must be brought to a definite end and the issues that go with them must one way or other be laid to rest.[42] In turn, lack of jurisdiction the ground relied upon by petitioner is confined only to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[43] A valid invocation of this ground rests exclusively on absolute lack of jurisdiction as opposed to a mere abuse of jurisdictional discretion[44] or mere errors in judgment committed in the exercise of jurisdiction[45] inasmuch as jurisdiction is distinct from the exercise thereof.[46] Hence, where the facts demonstrate that the court has validly acquired jurisdiction over the respondent and over the subject matter of the case, its decision or order cannot be validly voided via a petition for annulment on the ground of absence or lack of jurisdiction.[47]

GR No. 176709

2009-05-08

FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. EDWIN D. SORONGON

TINGA, J.

Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to try, hear and decide a case.[11] Moreover, that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint without regard to whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein is a well entrenched principle.[12] In this regard, the jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the defenses pleaded in the answer or in the motion to dismiss, lest the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant.[13]

GR No. 161220

2008-07-30

BENATIRO v. HEIRS OF EVARISTO CUYOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud will lie only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in character.[27] Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the prevailing party.[28] Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court. [29]

GR No. 147082

2008-01-28

HEIRS OF MAURA SO v. vs.LUCILA JOMOC OBLIOSCA

NACHURA, J.

Petitioners clearly confused lack of jurisdiction with error in the exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. [21] The error raised by petitioners pertains to the trial court's exercise of its jurisdiction, not its lack of authority to decide the case. In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of authority to hear and decide the case. On this basis, there would be no valid ground to grant the petition for annulment of judgment.

GR No. 148206

2007-08-24

SPS. EULOGIO MORALES AND ROSALIA ARZADON v. SUBIC SHIPYARD

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[4] Where the court has jurisdiction over the defendant and over the subject matter of the case, its decision will not be voided on the ground of absence of jurisdiction. Here, there is no dispute that the trial court has jurisdiction over the case for eminent domain.

GR NO. 121165

2006-09-26

DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

There is extrinsic fraud when a party has been prevented by fraud or deception from presenting his case. Fraud is extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.[19] It must be distinguished from intrinsic fraud which refers to acts of a party at a trial which prevented a fair and just determination of the case, and which could have been litigated and determined at the trial or adjudication of the case.[20]

GR NO. 121165

2006-09-26

DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

There is extrinsic fraud when a party has been prevented by fraud or deception from presenting his case. Fraud is extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.[19] It must be distinguished from intrinsic fraud which refers to acts of a party at a trial which prevented a fair and just determination of the case, and which could have been litigated and determined at the trial or adjudication of the case.[20]

GR NO. 170926

2006-09-15

GUIGUINTO CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. AIDA TORRES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Under Section 2 of Rule 47, judgments may be annulled on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, which refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[32] A judgment of annulment sets aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and renders the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court.

GR NO. 158238

2006-07-20

MARY GRACE M. VENERACION v. CHARLIE MANCILLA BY HIS HEIRS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the relief prayed for.[27] Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery upon all or some of the claims prayed therein is not essential. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law and not by agreement or consent of the parties.[28] Neither does it depend upon the defenses of the defendant in his/her answer or in a motion to dismiss.

GR No. 141241

2005-11-22

REPUBLIC v. 'G' HOLDINGS

CORONA, J.

Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[14] Where the court has jurisdiction over the defendant and over the subject matter of the case, its decision will not be voided on the ground of absence of jurisdiction.

GR NO. 144273

2005-10-20

RODOLFO RAMOS v. JUDGE ALFONSO V. COMBONG

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

These, however, do no constitute extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the prevailing party.[10] Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.[11]

GR NO. 155737

2005-10-19

R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE HAWK TRANSPORT CORPORATION

QUISUMBING, J.

The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes of his counsel.[9] Exceptions to the foregoing have been recognized by the Court in the cases of Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[10] and Escudero v. Dulay,[11] such as when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when the application "results in the outright deprivation of one's property through a technicality."[12]

	GR No. 159926 2014-01-20	PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE v. FAR EAST BANK BERSAMIN, J.
The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented the petitioner from having his day in court.[35] Nonetheless, extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.[36]
	GR No. 163602 2011-09-07	SPS. EULOGIA MANILA v. SPS. EDERLINDA GALLARDO-MANZO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We are not persuaded by respondents' asseveration. They could have directly followed up the status of their case with the RTC especially during the period of Atty. Atienza's hospital confinement. As party litigants, they should have constantly monitored the progress of their case. Having completely entrusted their case to their former counsel and believing his word that everything is alright, they have no one to blame but themselves when it turned out that their opportunity to appeal and other remedies from the adverse ruling of the RTC could no longer be availed of due to their counsel's neglect. That respondents continued to rely on the services of their counsel notwithstanding his chronic ailments that had him confined for long periods at the hospital is unthinkable. Such negligence of counsel is binding on the client, especially when the latter offered no plausible explanation for his own inaction. The Court has held that when a party retains the services of a lawyer, he is bound by his counsel's actions and decisions regarding the conduct of the case. This is true especially where he does not complain against the manner his counsel handles the suit.[14] The oft-repeated principle is that an action for annulment of judgment cannot and is not a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal.[15]
	GR No. 165333 2010-02-09	REPUBLIC v. TECHNOLOGICAL ADVOCATES FOR AGRO-FOREST PROGRAMS ASSOCIATION PERALTA, J.
Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the only grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[30] It is absence of, or no, jurisdiction; that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
	GR No. 176906 2009-08-04	ANDREW B. NUDO v. AMADO S. CAGUIOA NACHURA, J.
An action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy, which is not to be granted indiscriminately by the Court. It is a recourse equitable in character allowed only in exceptional cases. The reason for the restriction is to prevent this 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.[15] Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the only grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[16]
	GR No. 166734 2009-07-03	MANDY COMMODITIES CO. v. INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA PERALTA, J.
The grounds for a petition for annulment are in themselves specific in the same way that the relief itself is. The Rules restrict the grounds only to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud[40] to prevent the remedy from being used by a losing party in making a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision or a duly issued order or resolution that has long attained finality.[41] This certainly is based on sound public policy for litigations and, despite occasional risks of error, must be brought to a definite end and the issues that go with them must one way or other be laid to rest.[42] In turn, lack of jurisdiction the ground relied upon by petitioner is confined only to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[43] A valid invocation of this ground rests exclusively on absolute lack of jurisdiction as opposed to a mere abuse of jurisdictional discretion[44] or mere errors in judgment committed in the exercise of jurisdiction[45] inasmuch as jurisdiction is distinct from the exercise thereof.[46] Hence, where the facts demonstrate that the court has validly acquired jurisdiction over the respondent and over the subject matter of the case, its decision or order cannot be validly voided via a petition for annulment on the ground of absence or lack of jurisdiction.[47]
	GR No. 176709 2009-05-08	FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. EDWIN D. SORONGON TINGA, J.
Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to try, hear and decide a case.[11] Moreover, that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint without regard to whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein is a well entrenched principle.[12] In this regard, the jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the defenses pleaded in the answer or in the motion to dismiss, lest the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant.[13]
	GR No. 161220 2008-07-30	BENATIRO v. HEIRS OF EVARISTO CUYOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud will lie only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in character.[27] Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the prevailing party.[28] Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court. [29]
	GR No. 147082 2008-01-28	HEIRS OF MAURA SO v. vs.LUCILA JOMOC OBLIOSCA NACHURA, J.
Petitioners clearly confused lack of jurisdiction with error in the exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority to decide a case, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. [21] The error raised by petitioners pertains to the trial court's exercise of its jurisdiction, not its lack of authority to decide the case. In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of authority to hear and decide the case. On this basis, there would be no valid ground to grant the petition for annulment of judgment.
	GR No. 148206 2007-08-24	SPS. EULOGIO MORALES AND ROSALIA ARZADON v. SUBIC SHIPYARD SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[4] Where the court has jurisdiction over the defendant and over the subject matter of the case, its decision will not be voided on the ground of absence of jurisdiction. Here, there is no dispute that the trial court has jurisdiction over the case for eminent domain.
	GR NO. 121165 2006-09-26	DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
There is extrinsic fraud when a party has been prevented by fraud or deception from presenting his case. Fraud is extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.[19] It must be distinguished from intrinsic fraud which refers to acts of a party at a trial which prevented a fair and just determination of the case, and which could have been litigated and determined at the trial or adjudication of the case.[20]
	GR NO. 121165 2006-09-26	DOMINADOR F. CARILLO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
There is extrinsic fraud when a party has been prevented by fraud or deception from presenting his case. Fraud is extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.[19] It must be distinguished from intrinsic fraud which refers to acts of a party at a trial which prevented a fair and just determination of the case, and which could have been litigated and determined at the trial or adjudication of the case.[20]
	GR NO. 170926 2006-09-15	GUIGUINTO CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. AIDA TORRES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Under Section 2 of Rule 47, judgments may be annulled on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, which refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[32] A judgment of annulment sets aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and renders the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court.
	GR NO. 158238 2006-07-20	MARY GRACE M. VENERACION v. CHARLIE MANCILLA BY HIS HEIRS CALLEJO, SR., J.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim is conferred by law and is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the relief prayed for.[27] Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery upon all or some of the claims prayed therein is not essential. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law and not by agreement or consent of the parties.[28] Neither does it depend upon the defenses of the defendant in his/her answer or in a motion to dismiss.
	GR No. 141241 2005-11-22	REPUBLIC v. 'G' HOLDINGS CORONA, J.
Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[14] Where the court has jurisdiction over the defendant and over the subject matter of the case, its decision will not be voided on the ground of absence of jurisdiction.
	GR NO. 144273 2005-10-20	RODOLFO RAMOS v. JUDGE ALFONSO V. COMBONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
These, however, do no constitute extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act committed by the prevailing party outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the prevailing party.[10] Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.[11]
	GR NO. 155737 2005-10-19	R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE HAWK TRANSPORT CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes of his counsel.[9] Exceptions to the foregoing have been recognized by the Court in the cases of Legarda v. Court of Appeals,[10] and Escudero v. Dulay,[11] such as when the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when the application "results in the outright deprivation of one's property through a technicality."[12]

PABLO T. TOLENTINO v. OSCAR LEVISTE