DUREMDES v JORILLA, et al.

G.R. No. 234491, February 26, 2020

FACTS:
Respondents Jorilla, et al. filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money plus Damages
against petitioner Duremdes and Emerflor B. Manginsay, Jr. Respondents sought the
recovery of payments they allegedly made to Vitamins & Cebu Artists International, Inc.
(VCAII) as the latter's alleged victims of illegal recruitment. Respondents alleged that
petitioner Duremdres and Manginsay were majority stockholders of VCAII.

On March 20, 2014, RTC rendered its Decision awarding the respondents actual and
moral damages. RTC explained that summons was served upon petitioner and Manginsay
by publication they failed to file their answers or any responsive pleading. RTC declared
petitioner and Manginsay in default and allowed respondents to present their evidence ex
parte.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment dated May 22, 2014 accompanied by
his own Affidavit of Merit. In the petition, he sought the annulment of the RTC Decision.
Petitioner argued, among others, that the RTC Decision should be set aside on the ground of
fraud considering that respondents knowingly specified an erroneous address for the
purpose of fraudulently gaining a favorable judgment. As a result, petitioner was not
properly served with summons to be able to answer the allegations of respondents, and for
the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over his person.

On July 21, 2016, RTC denied the petition; petitioner filed an MR but was denied. RTC then
ordered the issuance of a writ of execution in view of the finality of the Decision dated
March 20, 2014.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA but CA dismissed it. CA ruled that the
petition for certiorari was fatally defective because, among others, there is no explanation
at all in the present petition and in the petition for relief from judgment as to why
petitioner did not avail of the remedy of appeal upon his receipt of the RTC's Decision dated
March 20, 2014. CA explained that a petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy
and is allowed only in exceptional cases from final judgments or orders when no other
remedy is available. It will not be entertained when the proper remedy is appeal or certiorari. In
this case, the petition for relief from judgment was filed as a substitute for a lost appeal. It
necessarily follows that the present petition for certiorari, an extraordinary remedy, cannot
be availed of to cure a previously lost legal remedy.

Petitioner filed an MR, but CA denied it. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Should a petition for relief, grounded on extrinsic fraud which ultimately results in the
court's lack of jurisdiction over the defendant, be dismissed for failure to avail of the
remedy of an appeal and for untimeliness? - NO
HELD:
Generally, for the filing of a petition for relief to be proper, petitioner must satisfy the
following requirements:
(1) he or she has no adequate remedy available to him, which is either a motion for new
trial or appeal from adverse decisions of the lower court, and he was prevented by
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking
the appeal; and
(2) he or she must comply with the double period set forth under Section 3, Rule 38 of
the Rules of Court.
However, these rules are not to be taken as absolute. In fact, the Court deems it proper to
make an exception in this case.

Specifically, the above-stated rule will not apply when a petition for relief which is
grounded on extrinsic fraud ultimately results in the court's lack of jurisdiction over
the defendant, and which consequently makes the judgment rendered by the trial
court void. In such a case, the petition for relief should not be dismissed for failure of one
to avail himself of the remedy of an appeal and for untimeliness.

Here, petitioner invoked the ground of extrinsic fraud in his petition for relief. He argued
that he was deprived of the opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the RTC in
Civil Case No. Q-09-65496 by reason of respondents' act of providing the court with an
erroneous address where summons may be served on him. Petitioner alleged that
respondents' act was for the purpose of fraudulently gaining a favorable judgment.

The rule is that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through
service of summons or through voluntary appearance in court and submission to its
authority. Thus, in the absence of service or when the service of summons upon the person
of defendant is defective, the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and the
judgment rendered against him is null and void.

Here, the action filed by respondents before the RTC which is an action for Collection of
Sum of Money plus Damages is an action in personam because respondents sought to
enforce a personal obligation against petitioner. In an action in personam, if the defendant
does not voluntarily appear in court, the court acquires jurisdiction through personal or
substituted service of summons.

Assuming the truth on petitioner's argument, the necessary consequence of the extrinsic
fraud committed upon petitioner is that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over his person.

In Bilag, et al. v. Ay-ay, et al., citing Tan v. Cinco, the Court ruled that a judgment rendered
by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and may be attacked anytime. As it is no
judgment at all, all acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no
legal effect. x x x
Also, under Section 284 in relation to Section 3, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, when the
petition for annulment of judgment is grounded on lack of jurisdiction, the petition may
be filed before it is barred by laches or estoppel.

Similarly, a petition for relief which is grounded on extrinsic fraud and which ultimately
negates the court's jurisdiction may be filed anytime as long as the action is not barred by
laches or estoppel.

Unfortunately, the CA dismissed the petition for petitioner's failure to appeal from the RTC
Decision dated July 21, 2016 without realizing that if petitioner's allegations are true, i.e.,
that respondents committed extrinsic fraud by providing the court an erroneous address
where summons may be served on petitioner, this would have made the RTC Decision
dated July 21, 2016 void for lack of jurisdiction over the petitioner, and thus, may be
assailed anytime.

Clearly, the propriety of filing the petition for relief in this case and its timeliness are
necessarily intertwined with the merits of petitioner's petition for certiorari which involve
questions of fact and law. Since Rule 45 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that only
questions of law shall be entertained in a petition for review on certiorari, the Court deems
it proper to remand the case to the CA for determination of the merits of petitioner's
petition for certiorari.
Notes:
First, a discussion on the nature of a petition for relief is proper.

A petition for relief is governed by Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. It provides:

SEC. 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings. - When a
judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against
a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may
file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or
proceeding be set aside.

In Philippine Amanah Bank v. Contreras, the Court explained the remedy of a petition for
relief as follows:

Relief from judgment is a remedy provided by law to any person against whom a decision or
order is entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. It is a remedy,
equitable in character, that is allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other
available or adequate remedy. When a party has another remedy available to him, which may
either be a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and he
was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence from filing such
motion or taking such appeal, he can not avail of the remedy of petition for relief.

Further, in City of Dagupan v. Maramba, the Court explained the grounds for relief from
judgment under Rule 38; thus:

Excusable negligence as a ground for a petition for relief requires that the
negligence be so gross "that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded
against it." This excusable negligence must also be imputable to the party-litigant and
not to his or her counsel whose negligence binds his or her client. The binding effect of
counsel's negligence ensures against the resulting uncertainty and tentativeness of
proceedings if clients were allowed to merely disown their counsels' conduct.

Nevertheless, this court has relaxed this rule on several occasions such as:
"(1) where [the] reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due
process of law;
(2) when [the rule's] application will result in outright deprivation of the client's
liberty or property; or
(3) where the interests of justice so require."
Certainly, excusable negligence must be proven.

Fraud as a ground for a petition for relief from judgment pertains to extrinsic or collateral
fraud. This court explained this type of fraud as follows:

Where fraud is the ground, the fraud must be extrinsic or collateral. The extrinsic or
collateral fraud that invalidates a final judgment must be such that it prevented the
unsuccessful party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense and the
 losing party from having an adversarial trial of the issue. There is extrinsic fraud
when a party is prevented from fully presenting his case to the court as when the
lawyer connives to defeat or corruptly sells out his client's interest. Extrinsic fraud can
be committed by a counsel against his client when the latter is prevented from
presenting his case to the court.

On the other hand, mistake as used in Rule 38 means mistake of fact and not mistake
of law. A wrong choice in legal strategy or mode of procedure will not be considered a
mistake for purposes of granting a petition for relief from judgment. Mistake as a
ground also "does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which
the court might have committed in the trial [since] such error may be corrected by
means of an appeal."

Mistake can be of such nature as to cause substantial injustice to one of the parties. It
may be so palpable that it borders on extrinsic fraud.

Also, the time for filing a petition for relief is provided under Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules
of Court; thus:

SEC. 3. Time for filing petition; contents and verification. – A petition provided for in
either of the preceding sections of this Rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60)
days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be
set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was
entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits
showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the
facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, as
the case may be.

The double period provided under Section 3, Rule 38, i.e., (1) 60 days after petitioner
learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside; and (2) not more
than six months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was
taken, is jurisdictional and must be strictly complied with. Thus, a petition for relief
from judgment filed beyond the reglementary period is dismissed outright.

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 over the subject matter or
nature of the action. The latter is a matter of procedural law, for it involves the service of
summons or other processes on the petitioner.
Thus, in Sps. Laus v. Court of Appeals, the Court did not deem as fatal to the petition
for certiorari, prohibition and injunction before the CA the failure of petitioner to
appeal from the judgment of default which the Court ruled as null and void on the
ground that the substituted service of summons was not validly effected. The Court
ruled that in the first place, a void judgment can never become final and executory
and may even be assailed or impugned anytime.

Further, in NHA v. Commission on Settlement of Land Problems, the Court ruled that
a petition for certiorari to declare the nullity of a void judgment should not be
dismissed for untimeliness since a void judgment never acquires finality and any
action to declare its nullity does not prescribe.