Spouses Mesina v.

Meer

Under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition for relief must be filed
within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other
proceeding to be set aside and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the
petitioners good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.  Most
[18]

importantly, it should be filed with the same court which rendered the decision, viz:

Section 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. [19]

As revised, Rule 38 radically departs from the previous rule as it now allows the
Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court which decided the case or issued the order to hear
the petition for relief. Under the old rule, petition for relief from the judgment or final
order of municipal trial courts should be filed with the regional trial court, viz:

Section 1. Petition to Court of First Instance for Relief from Judgment of

inferior court.- When a judgment is rendered by an inferior court on a case,
and a party thereto by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has
been unjustly deprived of a hearing therein, or has been prevented from
taking an appeal, he may file a petition in the Court of First Instance of the
province in which the original judgment was rendered, praying that such
judgment be set aside and the case tried upon its merits.

Section 2. Petition to Court of First Instance for relief from the judgment
or other proceeding thereof.- When a judgment order is entered, or any
other proceeding is taken against a party in a Court of First Instance through
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in
such court and in the same cause praying that the judgment, order or
proceeding be set aside.

Petitioners argue that apart from this change, the present Rule extends the remedy
of relief to include judgments or orders of the Court of Appeals since the Rule uses the
phrase any court.  We disagree.
[20]

The procedural change in Rule 38 is in line with Rule 5, prescribing uniform

procedure for municipal and regional trial courts  and designation of
[21]

municipal/metropolitan trial courts as courts of record.  While Rule 38 uses the phrase
[22]

any court, it refers only to municipal/metropolitan and regional trial courts.

[23]
 The procedure in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court are governed by
separate provisions of the Rules of Court  and may, from time to time, be
[24]

supplemented by additional rules promulgated by the Supreme Court through

resolutions or circulars. As it stands, neither the Rules of Court nor the Revised Internal
Rules of the Court of Appeals  allow the remedy of petition for relief in the Court of
[25]

Appeals.
Petitioners beg this Court, on equitable grounds, not to strictly construe the Rules,
arguing that their only earthly possession is at stake.  Indeed, in certain occasions, this
[26]

Court has, in the interest of substantial justice and in exercise of its equity jurisdiction,
construed the Rules of Court with liberality.
Nevertheless, the circumstances obtaining in the present case do not convince this
Court to take exception.
As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the petitioners allegation of
extrinsic fraud should have been brought at issue in the Metropolitan Trial Court. If they
truly believe that the default of the spouses Mesina prejudiced their rights, they should
have questioned this from the beginning. Yet, they chose to participate in the
proceedings and actively presented their defense. And their efforts were rewarded as
the Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in their favor.
When the respondent appealed the case to the Regional Trial Court, they never
raised this issue. Even after the Regional Trial Court reversed the finding of the MeTC,
and the Court of Appeals sustained this reversal, petitioners made no effort to bring this
issue for consideration. This Court will not allow petitioners, in guise of equity, to benefit
from their own negligence.
The same is true with regard to the defenses forwarded by the petitioners in support
of their petition. These contentions should have been raised in the MeTC, as they have
been available to them since the beginning.
Finally, it is a settled rule that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be
relieved from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to
his own negligence, or a mistaken mode of procedure; otherwise, the petition for relief
will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has already been lost either
because of inexcusable negligence or due to mistaken mode of procedure by counsel.
 Petitioners, however, place the blame on their counsel and invoke honest mistake of
[27]

law. They contend that they lack legal education, hence, were not aware of the required
period for filing an appeal.
[28]

In exceptional cases, when the mistake of counsel is so palpable that it amounts to

gross negligence, this Court affords a party a second opportunity to vindicate his right.
But this opportunity is unavailing in the instant case, especially since petitioners have
squandered the various opportunities available to them at the different stages of this
case. Public interest demands an end to every litigation and a belated effort to reopen a
case that has already attained finality will serve no purpose other than to delay the
administration of justice.
 IN VIEW WHEREOF, this petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

 A remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings amounts to the grant of a new trial that is not
procedurally proper at this stage. Section 1 of Rule 37 provides that an aggrieved party may move the trial court
to set aside a judgment or final order already rendered and to grant a new trial within the period for taking an
appeal. In addition, a motion for new trial may be filed only on the grounds of (1) fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence that could not have been guarded against by ordinary prudence, and by reason of which
the aggrieved party’s rights have probably been impaired; or (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, the aggrieved party could not have discovered and produced at the trial, and that would probably alter the
result if presented. (NEW TRIAL)
 To sum up the claims of the petitioner, he theorizes that there was an error of law or irregularities
committed when the RTC promulgated a decision in absentia and deemed that he had waived his right to
present evidence resulting to denial of due process, a one-sided decision by the RTC, and a strict and rigid
application of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure against him.

First, it must be noted that the petitioner had already been arraigned and therefore, the court a quo had
already acquired jurisdiction over him. In fact, there was already an initial presentation of evidence for the
defense when his whereabouts became unknown.

The petitioner's claims that he had not testified because he did not know the schedule of the hearings, and
mistakenly believed that the case had already been terminated with the departure of Toor, Sr., do not merit
our consideration.21chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The holding of trial in absentia is authorized under Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution
which provides that after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. 22 It is established that
notices have been served to the counsel of the petitioner and his failure to inform his counsel of his
whereabouts is the reason for his failure to appear on the scheduled date. Thus, the arguments of the
petitioner against the validity of the proceedings and promulgation of judgment in absentia for being in
violation of the constitutional right to due process are doomed to fail. (NEW TRIAL)

A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
are mutually exclusive remedies. Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other
adequate remedy.37 The nature of the questions of law intended to be raised on appeal is of no
consequence. It may well be that those questions of law will treat exclusively of whether or not the
judgment or final order was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion. This is immaterial. The remedy is appeal, not certiorari as a special civil action.38
 Even granting arguendo that the instant certiorari petition is an appropriate remedy, still this Court
cannot grant the writ prayed for because we find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the CA in
the challenged issuances. The rule, as it stands now without exception, is that the 15-day
reglementary period for appealing or filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial cannot
be extended, except in cases before this Court, as one of last resort, which may, in its sound
discretion grant the extension requested.39 This rule also applies even if the motion is filed before
the expiration of the period sought to be extended.40 Thus, the appellate court correctly denied
petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration.
 It is well to point out that with petitioner’s erroneous filing of a motion for extension of time
and with her non-filing of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review from the CA’s
decision, the challenged decision has already attained finality and may no longer be
reviewed by this Court. The instant Rule 65 petition cannot even substitute for the lost
appeal41—certiorari is not a procedural device to deprive the winning party of the fruits of
the judgment in his or her favor.42 When a decision becomes final and executory, the court
loses jurisdiction over the case and not even an appellate court will have the power to
review the said judgment. Otherwise, there will be no end to litigation and this will set to
naught the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and
the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality.
(Estinozo)

o The CA seems to be correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari, considering that the order
granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss was a final, as distinguished from an interlocutory,
order against which the proper remedy was an appeal in due course. Certiorari, as an extraordinary
remedy, is not substitute for appeal due to its being availed of only when there is no appeal, or plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Heirs of Sps. Retera)
o The first mode of appeal, governed by Rule 41, is brought to the Court of Appeals
(CA) on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode of
appeal, covered by Rule 42, is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed
questions of fact and law. The third mode of appeal, provided in Rule 45, is filed with
the Supreme Court only on questions of law. (latorre)

o Section 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.

Lack of jurisdiction being a valid ground for annulment of judgments, circumstances that negate
the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction — including defective service of summons — are causes for
an action for annulment of judgments.114

However, this court had an occasion to say that an action for annulment of judgment "may not be
invoked (1) where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief, or other appropriate remedy and lost; or (2) where he has failed to avail himself of those
remedies through his own fault or negligence." 115 Thus, an action for annulment of judgment is not
always readily available even if there are causes for annulling a judgment.

In this case, petitioner’s main grounds for filing the action for annulment are lack of jurisdiction
over her person, and litis pendentia. These are the same grounds that were raised in the motion
for new trial filed before and denied by the Regional Trial Court.

Applying the above rules, we rule that the Court of Appeals did not err in denying petitioner’s
petition for annulment of the Regional Trial Court’s judgment. Petitioner had already filed a motion
for new trial and petition for certiorari invoking lack of jurisdiction as ground.

Petitioner’s filing of the petition for annulment of judgment after she had filed a motion for new
trial and lost, with both actions raising the same grounds, reveals an intent to secure a judgment
in her favor by abusing and making a mockery of the legal remedies provided by law.

This kind of abuse is what this court tries to guard against when it limited its application, and
stated in some of the cases that an action for annulment of judgment cannot be invoked when
other remedies had already been availed.
  In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, this Court reviews only errors of law and not
errors of facts.[9] The factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on this Court.
[10] This applies with greater force when both the trial court and the Court of Appeals
are in complete agreement on their factual findings.[11] In this case, there is no reason
to deviate from the findings of the lower courts. The facts relied upon by the trial and appellate
courts are borne out by the record. We agree with the conclusions drawn by the lower courts
from these facts.
 The trial court convicted appellant based on its findings that despite the suspension of the
agency’s license, appellant still convinced the applicants to give their money with the promise to
land a job abroad. Moreover, as the registered secretary of the agency she had management
control of the recruitment business.
 It is axiomatic that findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the collective
testimonies of witnesses and probative weight thereof and its conclusions culled from said
findings are accorded by this Court great respect, if not conclusive effect, because of the unique
advantage of the trial court in observing and monitoring at close range, the conduct, deportment
and demeanor of the witnesses as they testify before the trial court.[12] However, this
principle does not apply if the trial court ignored, misunderstood or misconstrued
cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would alter the
outcome of the case.[13] The exception obtains in this case.

 Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that an appeal may be taken only
from a final order, and not from an interlocutory one.
R42 S3 – Failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the requirements regarding the contents of
 and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
thereof.
