Rule 47-Annulment of Jdgmnts

Rule 47 – Annulment of Judgments Or Final Orders and Resolutions

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

Rule 47

ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS Rule 47 is an entirely new rule which governs the remedy of annulment of judgments or final orders or resolutions. We already met this remedy in judiciary law. The CA has original exclusive jurisdiction to annul final judgments and resolutions of the RTC. (Section 9, BP 129) So it is an entirely original action for annulment of judgment of the RTC. Now, that should not be confused with certiorari, prohibition and mandamus which fall under the original concurrent jurisdiction of the CA. Rule 47 or annulment of judgment of the RTC falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the CA. Take note that in an appeal, the judgment appealed from is valid. But in annulment under Rule 47, the judgment is being asked to be declared void. Under the prior law there was no direct rule governing that remedy. The only guideline for annulment of judgments of the RTC are decided cases. Now for the first time the 1997 Rules have a definite rule on how to enforce this remedy. So let’s read Section 1 because this is a remedy which has been existing without definite guidelines on how to do it. Section 1. Coverage. This Rule shall govern the 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 are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. (n)

Well of course the remedy of new trial under Rule 37 must be availed of before the judgment or order becomes final and executory. Also, the remedy of appeal must also be availed before the judgment or order becomes final and executory. In petition for relief under Rule 38, although the judgment or order is already final and executory, it must be done still within 60 days and 6 months. Q: Suppose all the abovementioned remedies have lapsed, is there a remedy left? A: Section I says YES. There is annulment of judgment but only on limited grounds. Now what are the grounds for annulment of judgment? Section 2: Sec. 2. Grounds for annulment. The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. 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. (n)

Q: What are the grounds for annulment of judgment under Section 2? A: The grounds recognized by law for annulment of judgment are the only two (2): 1.) The judgment was secured through extrinsic fraud; or Extrinsic fraud should not be a valid ground if availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. 2.) The judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction. First Ground: EXTRINSIC FRAUD Q: How do we describe the remedy of annulment of judgment?

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

109

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

Rule 47 – Annulment of Judgments Or Final Orders and Resolutions

A: Annulment of judgment is described briefly as a remedy against a judgment which is already final and executory when the remedy of appeal and new trial is already lost. Petition for relief under Rule 38 is a remedy against a final and executory judgment kaya lang merong deadline – 6 months and 60 days. So after these periods lapse, wala na. Sa petition for relief, apat yon eh: Fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence. In annulment of judgment, wala na yung accident, mistake and excusable negligence. But yung EXTRINSIC FRAUD natira pa. That is the only one which can be left behind under Rule 47. Q: Now what is meant by extrinsic fraud ? A: We already discussed this. Fraud, to be a ground for nullity of a judgment, must be extrinsic – that fraud done by the adverse party which prevented a party from having a trial or from presenting his case fully. Therefore, intrinsic fraud is not a ground for new trial. It is not a ground for petition for relief. And it is not a ground for annulment. INTRINSIC FRAUD is that fraud which was an issue in the litigation such as perjury, false testimony, concealment of evidentiary facts, but did not prevent you from presenting your case. That is not a ground for annulment of judgment. So take note of that principle. COSMIC LUMBER CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS 256 SCRA 168 [1996] FACTS: Cosmic Lumber owns a piece of land occupied by some squatters. Now, Cosmic Lumber executed a board resolution for a special power of attorney authorizing an attorney-in-fact to initiate, institute and file in any court action for the ejectment of the squatters from its property. Then the agent by virtue of the power of attorney, filed a case to recover a portion of this property from its occupants before the RTC. While the case was going on, the agent (the attorney-in- fact) entered into a compromise agreement with the squatters. In the compromise agreement, the attorney-in-fact sold the property or land to the squatter for only P26,000. And the compromise agreement was approved by the court and it became final and executory. Now it was several years later that the Cosmic Lumber heard about it. The Cosmic Lumber filed an action to annul the judgment before the CA on the ground of extrinsic fraud. The CA: The case will be dismissed because that is not one of the grounds for annulment of judgment because the alleged nullity of the compromise judgment, because petitioner’s attorney-in-fact was not authorized to sell the property. That does not amount to extrinsic fraud. That was fraud by your own representative, it is not fraud by the other party. The one who exercised fraud was your own attorney-in-fact, not the squatter. So kaya nga that is not a ground. The CA dismissed the action. So Cosmic Lumber went to the SC. HELD: “The petition to annul the decision of the trial court in civil case before the CA was proper. Emanating as it did from a void compromise agreement, the trial court had no jurisdiction to render a judgment based thereon.” So there is another ground – lack of jurisdiction. “The highly reprehensible conduct of attorney-in-fact in the civil case constituted an extrinsic or collateral fraud by reason of which the judgment rendered thereon should have been struck down. Not all the legal semantics in the world can becloud the unassailable fact that petitioner was deceived and betrayed by its attorney-in-fact. The latter deliberately concealed from petitioner, her principal, that a compromise agreement had been forged with the end result that a portion of petitioner’s property was sold literally for a song, for P26,000. Thus completely kept unaware of its agent’s artifice, petitioner was not

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

110

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

Rule 47 – Annulment of Judgments Or Final Orders and Resolutions

accorded even a fighting chance to repudiate the settlement so much so that the judgment based thereon became final and executory.” “For sure, the CA restricted the concept of fraudulent acts within too narrow limits. Fraud may assume different shapes and be committed in as many different ways and here lies the danger of attempting to define fraud. For man in his ingenuity and fertile imagination will always contrive new schemes to fool the unwary.” So fraud by your attorney-in-fact is also considered as a ground for annulment. Second Ground: JUDGMENT IS VOID If we follow jurisprudence, there is a third ground which is implied: LACK OF DUE PROCESS. When there is lack of due process there is also lack of jurisdiction. Q: How do you attack a judgment which is void? A: It depends: a.) when the judgment is null and void on its very face, the judgment may be attacked: 1.) DIRECTLY; or 2.) COLLATERALLY; b.) when the nullity is not apparent on the face of the judgment, the judgment can be attacked only be DIRECTLY attacked. Q: What is a COLLATERAL ATTACK? A: Meaning, there is no need for me to file a case but I can invoke its nullity anytime because a judgment which is void on its very face can be attacked at anytime, in any manner anywhere. EXAMPLE of Collateral attack: You are moving to execute a judgment. I will oppose the execution on the ground that the judgment is void. That is collateral attack. I’m just saying that the judgment cannot be enforced because it is null and void. But I never filed a direct action to declare its nullity. That can be done if the judgment is void on its very face. Q: What is a DIRECT ATTACK? A: By direct attack means you must file an action to declare its nullity. So there must be a case for its annulment. Again, when the judgment is null and void on its face, (1) you may file a direct action to annul it under Rule 47. Or, (2) it can also be attacked collaterally, a direct attack is not necessary. A collateral attack will suffice. EXAMPLE: RTC decided a forcible entry. By simply reading the decision, obviously the RTC has no jurisdiction. Therefore, I can attack it directly by filing a case for its annulment under Rule 47. OR, I will not file a case under Rule 47 but I will attack it collaterally. Meaning, bayaan ko lang. I will raise that issue during execution. If you move for execution, I can oppose, “You cannot execute because the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case. Therefore the judgment is void.” So it is not necessary to file a case to declare the decision as null and void. That is collateral attack. But if the judgment is not void on its face but the nullity is intrinsic or nakatago – not obvious ba – the rule is, you must file a direct action for its annulment which must be done before the action is barred by laches or estoppel. So it is necessary to file a case for annulment of judgment under Rule 47.

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

111

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

Rule 47 – Annulment of Judgments Or Final Orders and Resolutions

Well of course, certiorari under Rule 65 is also a ground for attacking a judgement but the trouble is you are limited to 3 grounds: Lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion. Walang extrinsic fraud. That is governed by Rule 65 and not by Rule 47. And under Rule 65, you can avail of certiorari only within 60 days. But if you want annulment, it could be longer under Rule 47. That is under section 3. That could be a big difference. Moreover, what do you attack in certiorari? Normally, interlocutory orders eh. But a final judgment can be attacked by annulment under Rule 47. Now, those remedies were summarized in the case of BAYOG vs. NATINO 258 SCRA 378 [1996] HELD: It is a settled rule that a final and executory judgment may be set aside in three (3) ways. To wit: 1. By petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38; 2. When the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction, by direct attack, by certiorari, annulment of judgment or by collateral attack; and 3. When the judgment was obtained by fraud and Rule 38 cannot be applied anymore. So those are the summary of the remedies. ISLAMIC DAVAO COUNSEL vs. COURT OF APPEALS 178 SCRA 178 ISSUE #1: Can a person, who is not a party to the judgment, file an action for annulment of judgment? HELD: A person who is not a part of the judgment may sue for its annulment PROVIDED that he can prove [1] that the judgment was obtained through fraud and collusion and [2] that he would be adversely affected thereby. ISSUE #2: Suppose the judgment had already been fully executed and implemented, can you still file a case for annulment of judgment? HELD: YES. We will also annul the execution. If there is no execution yet, the proper remedy normally is you file an action for annulment and ask for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction so that it will not be enforced. Pero kung na-enforced na pwede pa man din ba. SUMMARY: Possible remedies of defendant declared in DEFAULT: 1.) Rule 9, Section 3 [b] – Motion to lift Order of Default, there is still no judgment; ground: FAME; 2.) Rule 37 – Motion for new trial, judgment not yet final; Ground: FAME; 3.) Rule 38 – Petition for relief within 60 days and 6 months, judgment is already final; ground: FAME; 4.) Rule 41 – Appeal within 15 days; ground: Default judgment is contrary to law or evidence; 5.) Rule 47 – Annulment of judgment; Ground: Extrinsic Fraud; 6.) Rule 65 – Certiorari; ground: Lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion Q: What is the period to file an action for annulment on the ground of extrinsic fraud? A: Section 3:

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

112

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

Rule 47 – Annulment of Judgments Or Final Orders and Resolutions

Sec. 3. Period for filing action. If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel. (n)

This is based on decided cases. If your ground is extrinsic fraud, the action is filed within four (4) years from its discovery. Now, if it is based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel. That is very elastic – laches or estoppel. Although if you look at the strict law based on Article 1144 of the New Civil Code, the prescriptive period really is 10 years for any action on judgment. That is the strict law but it could be barred earlier by laches or estoppel. Now as to the contents of the petition, we have Section 4: Sec. 4. Filing and contents of petition. The action shall be commenced by filing a verified petition alleging therein with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. The petition shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies, together with sufficient copies corresponding to the number of respondents. A certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution shall be attached to the original copy of the petition intended for the court and indicated as such by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause of action or defense and a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same, and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.(n)

Take note that yung mga affidavits of your witnesses or documents supporting your cause of action must be attached already. You correlate this with Rule 37, Section 2 on new trial and Rule 38, Section 3 on petition for relief. What does Rule 37, Section 2 and Rule 38, Section 3 say about motion for new trial or petition for relief? There is also an AFFIDAVIT OF MERITS showing the nature of the fraud, accident and the meritorious cause of action or defense. So more or less that principle also applies in Rule 47. Sec. 5. Action by the court. Should the court find no substantial merit in the petition, the same may be dismissed outright with specific reasons for such dismissal. Should prima facie merit be found in the petition, the same shall be given due course and summons shall be served on the respondent. (n)

Under Section 5, the court may dismiss outright the petition if there is no merit or no substantial merit. If there is, then the same shall be given due course and summons shall be served on the respondent. Take note there will be SUMMONS here. Unlike in Rule 46, walang summons yon. But here, there will be summons by the CA. That is the difference between Rule 47 and Rule 46. Sec. 6. Procedure. The procedure in ordinary civil cases shall be observed. Should a trial be necessary, the reception of the evidence may be referred to a member of the court or a judge of a Regional Trial Court. (n)

Q: What happens if the judgment is annulled? Can the plaintiff re-file the case? A: YES, because it is as if there was no judgment. Section 7:

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

113

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

Rule 47 – Annulment of Judgments Or Final Orders and Resolutions

Sec. 7. Effect of judgment. A judgment of 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 refiled in the proper court. However, where the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein. (n)

So if the judgment is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the action can be refiled. The court may, on motion, order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motions for the trial had been granted therein. That is similar to Rule 38, Section 6. Remember when the court grants a petition for relief, the case will be tried all over again as if a timely motion for new trial has been filed. Q: What happens if by the time you re-file the case the prescriptive period has already lapsed? A: As a general rule, while the action for annulment is pending, the prescriptive period for filing is interrupted. That is Section 8: Sec. 8. Suspension of prescriptive period. The prescriptive period for the refiling of the aforesaid original action shall be deemed suspended from the filing of such original action until the finality of the judgment of annulment. However, the prescriptive period shall not be suspended where the extrinsic fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the original action. (n)

Q: What happens if a judgment is annulled and it was earlier executed? A: Section 9: Sec. 9. Relief available. The judgment of annulment may include the award of damages, attorney’s fees and other relief. If the questioned judgment or final order or resolution had already been executed, the court may issue such orders of restitution or other relief as justice and equity may warrant under the circumstances. (n)

Under Section 9, the court may issue order of restitution or other reliefs as justice and equity may warrant. That is similar to Rule 39, Section 5 – in case of execution pending appeal and the appealed judgment is reversed, the court will now order mutual restitution pursuant to Rule 39, Section 5. Sec. 10. Annulment of judgments or final orders of Municipal Trial Courts. An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. It shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be applicable thereto. (n)

I have always maintained this view. As I said, if we will look at the judiciary law, it only mentions annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts which should be filed in the CA (exclusive original). And the QUESTION is asked: “Meron bang action for annulment of judgments of MTC?” Yaann! Answer: YES. Kung merong annulment of judgment of the RTC, by implication, meron din ang MTC. You cannot file it in the CA. You file it in the RTC. Annulment of judgment of the MTC will fall under the rule on jurisdiction of the RTC – any action which does not belong to the jurisdiction of any other courts (Section 19 [6], BP 129) or, an action the subject matter of which is incapable of pecuniary estimation (Section 19 [1], BP 129) That would be the authority. Now it’s very clear, meron talaga. It is now stated categorically there is an action for annulment of judgment also of the MTC. It must be filed in the RTC having jurisdiction over

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

114

Rule 47 – Annulment of Judgments Or Final Orders and Resolutions

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

the MTC. The grounds are identical as those found in the previous section. So this is an entirely new section. -oOo-

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

115