Civpro Reviewer [Justice de Leon]. Finals.

by Butch Ramiro 2C

49

Rule 47: Annulment of Judgments or final orders and resolutions

WHEN TAKEN?

Purcon v. MRM:
Only MTC/RTC
decisions can be
subject of
Annulment of
Judgment
Decisions/Final orders of RTC: This remedy is still available
even if the judgment has been final and executory

Who annuls? The CA annuls.

However, Sec 10 provides for this:

Judgments and final orders of MTCs shall be annulled in the RTC
having jurisdiction over the MTC. (meaning, if MTC decision is
sought to be annulled, file it with the RTC)

Reliefs Available (Sec 9)

The judgment of annulment may include the award of damages,
attorneys fees and other relief.

If the questioned judgment or final order or resolution has
already been executed, the court may issue such orders of
restitution or other relief as equity may warrant.
GROUNDS
(COMBINED
SECTION 1 AND 2)
1. When ordinary remedies of MNT, appeal or petition for
relief are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner
2. Either EXTRINSIC FRAUD or LACK OF JURISDICTION (of
the RTC)

Note: Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground IF it was
already availed of OR could have been availed of in a motion for
new trial or petition for relief

Extrinsic Fraud: any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the
litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case.
PERIOD FOR FILING 1. IF based on extrinsic fraud: Within 4 years from the
discovery of the fraud
2. IF based on lack of jurisdiction: Before laches or
estoppel bars its filing
PARTIES AND
CONTENTS
Islamic Da'Wah: A non-party to the judgment may file this
petition as long as he can prove his allegation that the
judgment was obtained through FAME or that the court did not
have jurisdiction.

It must be verified and also include a certification for non-forum
shopping
COURT ACTION If there is no substantial merit to the petition, it can be
dismissed outright.

IF prima facie merit is found, it shall be given due course and
respondent will be served summons
EFFECT OF IF GROUND IS LACK OF JURISDICTION: A judgment of
ANNULMENT OF
JUDGMENT
annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final
order or resolution and render the same null and void WITHOUT
prejudice to the original action being re-filed in the proper court

IF GROUND IS EXTRINSIC FRAUD: The court may on
motion, order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion
for new trial has been granted (CA will tell the RTC to try it
again or RTC will tell MTC to try it again)
SUSPENSION OF
PRESCRIPTIVE
PERIOD
The prescriptive period for re-filing of the original action shall
be deemed suspended from the filing of such original action
until the finality of the judgment of annulment.

HOWEVER the period will not be tolled where the extrinsic fraud
is due to the plaintiff in the original action.

Victory Liner v. Malinias

x Malianas car collided with Victory Liners bus. Malianas sued Victory Liner for
damages to his truck. MTC ruled in favor of Malianas.
x Victory Liner filed an MR but it was declared to be a mere scrap of paper for failure to
include notice of hearing therefore it did not toll the period to appeal (therefore it
was final and executory) He then went to the RTC by certiorari assailing the denial of
his MR. Also dismissed.
x Victory Liner filed a petition for relief from judgment against the MTC denial of his
MR. It was denied for being filed out of time.
x Victory Liner also filed a petition for annulment of judgment under rule 47 (with the
CA) CA ruled that the extrinsic fraud grounds raised by Victory Liner had already
been availed of in its earlier petition for relief from judgment. Determined, Victory
Liner went to the SC under Rule 45

Issue: Should Victory Liners petitions be granted?

x First, what should have petitioner done?
o It could have assailed MTCs denial of the MR under rule 65 alleging
GADLEJ.
o It couldve filed under rule 38, seeking that the MTC allow the appeal
despite the finality of judgment on the ground that it was prevented from
taking an appeal due to FAME
x What he did was file a notice of appeal even if it was stated that the decision was
already final and executory due to the defective MR. This was wrong. Also, it was
only after the notice of appeal was denied that VL pursued rule 38. Unfortunately,
this was filed 16 months after the rendition of the judgment sought to be set aside
and 14 months after the judgment was declared final and executory
x As regards the Rule 47 petition, VL went to the CA to annul the RTC ruling as regards
its petition for certiorari with a half-hearted attempt to also include the MTC ruling.
However, this is incorrect because an action to annul a judgment or final order of the
MTC should be filed with the RTC and NOT the CA.
o Possible remedy for RTC dismissal of petition for certiorari: Rule 41 appeal
x As regards CAs reasoning in dismissing the rule 47, the SC stated that the rule 38
was for the MTC decision (dismissing his notice of appeal) while the rule 47 was for
the RTC decision.
Rule 65: Certiorari