SECOND DIVISION
Sps.
BERNARDO V. ATIENZA G.R.
No. 131741
and
EUFROCINA M. ATIENZA,
Petitioners, Present:
- versus - PUNO, J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
THE
COURT OF APPEALS, AZCUNA, and
GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE GARCIA, JJ.
SYSTEM
(GSIS), EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF
of
of
MAKATI & MALABON, and
Sps. JEAN
and MELANIO N. DE
OCAMPO,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is a petition for review on
certiorari questioning the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals[1]
which denied a petition for annulment of the orders of the Regional Trial Court
of Makati, Branch 132[2]
which in turn dismissed a petition for annulment of sale.
The facts as narrated by the Court of
Appeals are as follows:
Sometime
in 1963, petitioners obtained a housing loan from respondent GSIS in the amount
of P18,000.00. As security,
petitioners executed a real estate mortgage over two (2) parcels of land
situated in Makati and Malabon
and covered by TCT Nos. 102885 and 108406.
Apparently, the loan obligation was not paid, so in 1984, respondent
GSIS notified petitioners of the foreclosure sale of their real estate
mortgage. To forestall the threatened
foreclosure, petitioners paid respondent GSIS the sum P185,000.00.
Despite the said payments, respondent GSIS proceeded with the auction sale,
with the latter as highest bidder. The
certificates of title in the name of petitioners were subsequently cancelled
and new ones issued in the name of respondent GSIS.
Petitioners
negotiated for the repurchase of the mortgaged properties at the redemption
price but respondent GSIS denied the offer.
Hence, on
The three (3) injunction suits were dismissed by the trial courts: Civil Case No. 87-42116 on the ground of improper venue; Civil Case No. 92-60056 on the ground that a similar case was already filed for the same cause of action (referring to CC No. 87-42116) and Civil Case No. 93-060 on the ground of res judicata.
Petitioner appealed Civil Case No. 93-060 to this Court (CA G.R. No. 44937) but [the appeal] was subsequently withdrawn.
Thereafter, petitioners instituted this present complaint [CC No. 94-2342] for annulment of sale against herein respondent GSIS before respondent court.
On
I. The verification made by the plaintiffs pursuant to Administrative Order No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court admits of the filing of other actions involving the same issues raised in the present case.
II. That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.
III. That the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
Petitioners opposed the motion asserting among others that the verification in the complaint did not admit the filing of other actions involving the same issues raised in the present case and that there is no other action pending between the same parties for the same cause.
The respondent court in its Order of
For resolution is a Motion to
Dismiss filed by defendant Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), thru
counsel, on
One of the grounds posed by defendant GSIS is [a] violation of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 on Forum Shopping.
In their certification on Non-Forum Shopping embodied in the verification of the complaint, plaintiffs admitted having filed:
1.
Civil Case No. 93-060 entitled “Eufrocina
M. Atienza vs. Government Service Insurance System”
at RTC-Branch 61,
2. Civil Case No. 87-42116 entitled “Eufrocina Atienza vs. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)” at RTC-Branch 30, Manila, for injunction; and
3.
Civil Case No. 92-60056 entitled “Eufrocina
Atienza vs. Government Service Insurance System” at
RTC-Branch 40,
These cases involved the same essential facts and circumstances with the instant case. The filing of this case, therefore, the issues of which could have been properly raised in the three earlier cases, amply demonstrate plaintiffs’ act of forum shopping.
IN VIEW THEREOF, this case is hereby dismissed.
The two other grounds asserted by defendant GSIS in its motion [are] considered moot and academic.
SO ORDERED. (pp.116-117, rollo).
Petitioners moved for reconsideration arguing that the present suit for annulment of sale [does] not involve the same cause of action as the three injunction cases filed before the Regional Trial Courts of Makati and Manila are only ancillary or preventive remedies to prevent respondent GSIS from taking over the possession of the subject properties, none of which could have resolved with finality the issue or validity of the auction sale and the subsequent issue of ownership of the mortgaged land.
On
Petitioners questioned the
respondent’s aforementioned Orders before this Court (CA G.R. SP No. 38198) via
a petition for certiorari which was denied by this Court on
The pleadings on file show that
petitioners filed [a] motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal and
they received a copy of the order denying their motion for reconsideration on
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. (p. 345, rollo).
Petitioners went up to the Supreme
Court (G.R. No 125268) thru a petition for review on certiorari. On
On
The
Court of Appeals denied the petition, declaring that the appropriate remedy
subsequent to the denial of the motion for reconsideration was a petition for
review on certiorari and not a petition for certiorari. By failing to file a petition for review on
certiorari on time, the Court of Appeals added, the petitioners lost the remedy
and the assailed orders became final and executory.
The
Court of Appeals went on to say that a petition for annulment of judgments or
final orders may only be availed of when the remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available
through no fault of the petitioner.
The Court of Appeals articulated that one of the grounds for the annulment of a judgment or final order is when such is obtained by extrinsic or collateral fraud. It defined extrinsic fraud as follows:
It is one the effect of which prevents a party from having a trial, or real contest, or from presenting all of his case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining, not to the judgment itself, but of the manner in which it was procured so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy. In other words, extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of [the] prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. (Macabingkil v. People’s Homesite and Housing Corp., 72 SCRA 326, cited in Top Management Programs Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 769-770).
The Court of Appeals found that the
fraud alleged by petitioners is not extrinsic, since petitioners were not
prevented from fully ventilating their case because of any fraudulent act
employed by the GSIS outside of the trial of the case.[4]
Petitioners
thereupon filed this petition and alleged that:
1. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was no extrinsic or collateral fraud in support of the petition, despite the clear showing that the order of dismissal was issued upon the initiative of and/or procured by respondent GSIS thru fraud and misrepresentation of the facts, which effectively prevented the petitioners from presenting evidence in support of their cause of action and having a trial on the merits or from presenting their case to the Trial Court, an EXTRINSIC OR COLLATERAL FRAUD in satisfaction of the requirement; and,
2.
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Motion
to Dismiss was well-grounded in that the dismissal of the injunction suits
constitute res judicata,
despite the provisions of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence holding that
injunctions are mere interlocutory orders and the dismissal thereof for
improper venue does not dispose of the case on the merits.
The petition is not meritorious.
As
discussed in the narration of facts, it appears that Civil Case No. 94-2342 had
been previously raised to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari,[5]
which the Court of Appeals denied due to the use of a wrong remedy. The Court of Appeals said that the case
should have been raised on a petition for review and not a petition for
certiorari.[6] The Court of Appeals also denied the motion
for reconsideration filed by petitioners.[7] Petitioners questioned the denial before this
Court in a petition for review on certiorari.[8] This Court denied the petition for review on
certiorari for having been filed one day late and for failure to show any
reversible error,[9] and also
denied the motion for reconsideration.[10] This case, therefore, has already been
decided by this Court with finality. Pacquing v. Court of Appeals[11]
declared:
It is an important fundamental principle in our Judicial system that every litigation must come to an end.
Access to the
courts is guaranteed. But there must be
a limit thereto. Once a litigant’s
rights have been adjudicated in a valid final judgment of a competent court, he
should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed
by subsequent suits. For, if endless
litigations were to be encouraged, then unscrupulous litigants will multiply in
number to the detriment of the administration of justice.[12]
Thus, litigation of this case must
now cease.
WHEREFORE,
the petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
Associate Justice
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] CA
G.R. No. 42904.
[2] Civil
Case No. 94-2342.
[3] Rollo, pp. 43-47.
[4]
[5] CA
G.R. No. 38198.
[6] Rollo, pp. 85-88.
[7]
[8] G.R.
No. 125268.
[9] Rollo, p. 76.
[10]
[11] 200
Phil. 516 (1982).
[12]