EMILIANA
S. DELA CRUZ, G.R. No. 156878
Petitioner,
Present:
- versus - Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
and
Nachura, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS and HON.
ANTONIO C. ALFANE as Judge of
RTC Branch 9,
ANTONIO MIRABEL, JR.,
Respondents. July 31, 2007
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This Petition for Review on
Certiorari assails the Resolution[1]
dated
The factual antecedents are as
follows:
In
October 1999, Antonio Mirabel, Jr. filed a Complaint[3]
against petitioner Emiliana S. de la Cruz before the
Petitioner
Emiliana failed to file an Answer within the extended period hence she was
declared in default. The case was deemed
submitted for judgment on the pleadings. On
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and declaring DBP Check No. 316239 in the amount of P900,000.00 and DBP Check No. 316240 in the amount of P120,000.00 void from the very beginning and for the defendant to pay the plaintiff P100,000.00 for moral damages plus P50,000.00 for attorney’s fees and to pay the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to
Lift Order of Default and for Reconsideration[6]
but was denied.[7]
Petitioner
filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals but the same was dismissed for failure
to file appellant’s brief within the extended period granted by the appellate
court.[8] Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
denied,[9] hence
she filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court docketed
as G.R. No. 148073.
On
The petition has no merit.
The dismissal of petitioner’s appeal in the Court of Appeals rendered the decision of the RTC final. Consequently, its merits cannot be questioned in this appeal where the only issue is the correctness of the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal for failure of petitioner’s counsel to file an appeal brief. Petitioner is bound by her counsel’s negligence. The right to appeal is a mere privilege and, therefore, should be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law. (See Cabellan v. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 119 [1999]).
In any event, we hold that petitioner was properly declared in default by the RTC because her former counsel likewise failed to seasonably answer respondent’s complaint despite the fact that he had been granted an extension of time for filing the same by the trial court. Hence, upon motion of the respondent, petitioner was declared in default and the case was deemed submitted for judgment on the pleadings. Petitioner’s “Omnibus Motion (to Lift Order of Default and for Reconsideration)” was likewise denied. It is, therefore, clear that petitioner cannot raise in this appeal issues that she should have raised in the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed
any reversible error.[10]
On
Notwithstanding, petitioner filed on
December 5, 2001 a Petition for Annulment of Judgment[12]
before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 67992 on grounds that
the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint and
that it gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
hastily rendering the judgment based on the pleadings.
On
No less than the Supreme Court has declared that petitioner was properly bound by the negligence of her counsel and that the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal rendered the RTC decision final.
The instant petition attempts to vary the form of action or adopt a different method of presenting the case. However, petitioner cannot escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated. The principle of res judicata is founded on public policy and necessity which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and that a party should not be vexed twice for the same cause of action.
WHEREFORE, there being no substantial merit in the petition, the same is DISMISSED pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule 47, Rules on Civil Procedure.
SO
ORDERED.[13]
Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration was denied; hence, the instant petition for review on
certiorari.
Petitioner alleges that the Court of
Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for annulment
of judgment. She argues that the lower
court has no jurisdiction over the complaint filed by respondent Mirabel and
that the judgment on the pleadings was rendered hastily amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
The petition lacks merit.
A
petition for annulment of judgment is an equitable remedy granted only in
exceptional cases. It can only be availed
of where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or
other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner.[14] The annulment of judgment may be based only on
the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.[15]
In the instant case, a petition for annulment
of judgment is not the proper remedy because there are other remedies available
to her, such as an appeal. Records show
that after the trial court declared petitioner in default and rendered its
judgment on the pleadings, petitioner’s counsel filed an omnibus motion to lift
order of default and for reconsideration.
The counsel claimed that he missed the deadline to file the responsive
pleading because he was overwhelmed by his professional work load and his
church duties.[16] The trial court found petitioner’s failure to
file the answer inexcusable and consequently denied the omnibus motion for lack
of merit.[17] Petitioner seasonably filed a notice of
appeal before the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner’s counsel filed several extensions to file brief which were
granted. However, no brief was filed
within the extended period hence the appeal was ordered dismissed.[18] Petitioner, on her behalf, filed a motion for
reconsideration praying that the order dismissing the appeal be set aside
because she has allegedly a meritorious defense.[19] However, the Court of Appeals was not
persuaded, ruling thus:
[I]f indeed defendant-appellant has a good and meritorious defense, she should have attached to the instant motion, her appellant’s brief or at least an affidavit of merit. This appellant failed to do. Besides, appellant-movant had not filed with this court any pleading dismissing the law firm of Atty. Herminio T. Banico, Jr., and Associates as her counsel.[20]
More
importantly, it cannot be said at this point that the remedy of appeal was lost
through no fault of petitioner. In the
Resolution dated
There is
likewise no merit in petitioner’s claim that the decision of the trial court is
void for lack of jurisdiction, hence it should be annulled. In our Resolution dated
Besides, as
correctly held by the Court of Appeals in its assailed Resolution dated
[I]f indeed defendant-appellant has a good and meritorious defense, she should have attached to the instant motion, her appellant’s brief or at least an affidavit of merit. This appellant failed to do.[23]
Petitioner
admits that she raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction only when she filed the
petition for review on certiorari before this Court in G.R. No. 148073,[24]
and not in the petition for review before the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, based
on the foregoing, the petition is DENIED.
The Resolution dated January 16, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
67992 dismissing petitioner’s Petition for Annulment of Judgment and the
Resolution dated January 15, 2003 denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration,
are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third 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 Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo,
pp. 98-100. Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred
in by Associate Justices Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. and Amelita G. Tolentino.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Unsigned Resolution.
[11] Rollo, p. 96.
[12]
[13]
[14] RULES
OF COURT, Rule 47, Sec. 1.
[15]
[16] Rollo, p. 46.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]