Lawyers are cautioned that certiorari is not a remedy for a lost appeal
A judgment attains finality after the expiration of the period to file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal.
It also becomes final and executory if there is no other legal remedy available to the losing party after the judgment is rendered by the Supreme Court or if the latter denies a motion for reconsideration.
“The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment of adjudicating bodies must become final and executory on some definite day fixed by law” (One Shipping Corporation v. Penafiel, G.R. 192406, January 21, 2015).
A judgment attaining finality therefore becomes immutable and unalterable.
“This quality of immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law” (G.R. 192406, January 21, 2015).
“The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments are (1) the correction of clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments” (G.R. 192406, January 21, 2015).
The exceptions are concerned only with corrections on the original judgment or in declaring a judgment void.
What are the legal remedies of an aggrieved party from a judgment that has attained finality?
These include a petition for relief from judgment or a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 38 and Rule 47, respectively, of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The petition for relief from judgment will be discussed by this author in a different article.
The case of Macabingkil v. People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation provided for a third remedy which is “either a direct action, as certiorari, or by collateral attack against the challenged judgment (which) is void upon its face, or that the nullity of the judgment is apparent by virtue of its own recitals” (cited in Arcelona, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. 102900, October 2, 1997).
Lawyers are cautioned that certiorari is not a remedy for a lost appeal.
An annulment of judgment is “a remedy in equity… [available] only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment… sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking [in] jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud” (Pinausukan Seafood House v. Far East Bank & Trust Company, G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).
“Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the judgment or final order is either lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action, or lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The former is a matter of substantive law because statutory law defines the jurisdiction of the courts… [while]… [t]he latter is a matter of procedural law, for it involves the service of summons or other process on the petitioner” (G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).
“A judgment or final order issued by the trial court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action is always void… [b]ut the defect of lack of jurisdiction over the person, being a matter of procedural law, may be waived by the party concerned either expressly or impliedly” (G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).
“Fraud is extrinsic… where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat…” (G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).
“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. 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” (G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).
“In Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, this Court declared that a final and executory judgment may still be set aside if, upon mere inspection thereof, its patent nullity can be shown for having been issued without jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law” (Diona v. Balangue, et al., G.R. 173559, January 7, 2013).
“The action, if based on extrinsic fraud, must be filed within four years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, must be brought before it is barred by laches or estoppel” (G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).
The remedy of annulment of judgment “is available only when the petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies through no fault of the petitioner.
This means the remedy, although seen as ‘a last remedy,’ is not an alternative to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal and petition for relief” G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).
In the case of Pinausukan Seafood House v. Far East Bank & Trust Company, the counsels of the parties failed to attend a court hearing despite a previous agreement to do so.
As a result, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute, and the dismissal of which attained finality (G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).
Claiming surprise over the turn of events, Pinausukan inquired with the RTC and learned that its counsel of record had not informed it about the order of dismissal.
Pinausukan brought the petition for annulment to the Court of Appeals, seeking the nullification of the order of dismissal.
“The substantive defect related to the supposed neglect of the counsel of record to keep track of the case, and [of] his failure to apprise Pinausukan of the developments in the case… [was] not accept[ed] [by the CA] as constituting extrinsic fraud because… what is involved is mistake and gross negligence of Pinausukan’s own counsel” (G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014). Full text at www.manilastandard.net
In the case of Tortal v. Taniguchi, the issue was whether or not Jerson E. Tortal may assail a final and executory judgment nullifying his marriage with Chizuru Taniguchi in an appeal of a case for annulling the levy and sale in the execution of Taniguchi’s house and lot in favor of Sales, a creditor of Tortal (G.R. 212683, November 12, 2018).
The petition to annul the levy and sale was initiated by Taniguchi after she learned that Tortal and Sales entered into a compromise agreement in a collection case between them.
The compromise agreement led to the levy of Taniguchi’s property which was sold on public auction.
Tortal claims he failed to participate in the proceedings for the nullity of his marriage with Taniguchi because summons was not served on him. In the same case, the court declared the house and lot as Taniguchi’s exclusive property.
The Supreme Court said “instead of directly assailing the… Decision, which granted the nullity of his marriage in an action for annulment of judgment, petitioner chose to tackle the issue in his appeal… which nullified the levy and sale by auction of the house and lot to Sales. This is clearly not the correct remedy” (G.R. 212683, November 12, 2018).
“Without a ruling from the Court of Appeals nullifying the… Decision, which granted the nullity of petitioner (Tortal) and respondent’s (Taniguchi) marriage and declar[ing] respondent as the exclusive owner of the house and lot, this Decision remains valid and subsisting… [m]oreover, it became final and executory”(G.R. 212683, November 12, 2018).
In another case, “Sebastian’s petition for annulment of judgment before the CA clearly alleged that, contrary to the claim of Spouses Cruz (Nelson and Cristina) in LRC Case 421, the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT P-41566 was not really lost, [but] was surrendered to her by Lamberto, Nelson’s father and attorney-in-fact, and was in her possession all along” (Sebastian v. Spouses Cruz, et al., G.R. 220940, March 20, 2017).
“Should such allegation be proven following the conduct of further proceedings, then there would be no other conclusion than that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of LRC Case 421.
“As a consequence, the Decision dated March 27, 2014 of the RTC in the said case would then be annulled on the ground of lack of jurisdiction” (G.R. 220940, March 20, 2017).
The remedy of annulment of judgment is available only in civil actions or cases (Section 1, Rule 47, Rules of Civil Procedure).
The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment being questioned was rendered in a criminal case and when there is no law or rule providing for this remedy (People v. Bitanga, G.R. 159222, June 26, 2007).