SPOUSES DEMETRIO VIERNES AND ROSARIO P. VIERNES, REPRESENTED BY: RICHARD P. VIERNES, PETITIONERS, VS. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 96, NOW PRESIDED BY THE HON AFA…

The Court DISMISSES the petitioners’ Petition For Annulment of Judgment.^[1]

Under Rule 47, Sections 1 and 2^[2] of the Rules of Court, and pursuant to the ruling in Dare Adventure farm Corp. v. Court of Appeals,^[3]
the remedy of annulment of judgments, final orders, or resolutions
provided in Rule 47 is available and is limited to where the following
circumstances are present: 1) the remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies, are no
longer available, through no fault of petitioner; and 2) there is
either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.

It appears from the allegations in the Petition, that not both
of the circumstances or limitations set forth by law, are present here.

The first requisite is absent. The remedies of new trial and
appeal are no longer available through no fault of petitioners.
However, while the remedy of petition for relief is no longer available,
it was lost through the fault of petitioners.

The remedy of a new trial is available under Rule 37 of the
Rules of Court. It should be filed within the period for taking an
appeal (or 15 days from notice of judgment) as provided in Rule 37,
Section 1.^[4] This remedy was lost through no fault of petitioners.

The remedy of an appeal is available under Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court. It should be filed within 15 days from notice of the
judgment, as provided in Rule 41, Section 3.^[5] This remedy was lost through no fault of petitioners.

The remedy of a petition for relief from judgment is available
under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. It should be filed 60 days from
the time petitioner learned of the judgment, and not more than 6 months
after judgment was entered, as provided in Rule 38, Section 3.^[6]

From the allegations in the Petition it appears that the
petitioners had no knowledge, nor did they participate in the
proceedings before the RTC, and only gained knowledge of such
proceedings on 16 November 2013 when they received a copy of the
Certificate of Finality. Clearly, under Rule 38 Section 3, the
petitioners could have filed a petition for relief from judgment, within
60 days from 16 November 2013, or until 15 January 2014, and not more
than 6 months after the judgment was entered. However they did not file
a petition for relief from judgment. After the expiration of the
period to file a petition for relief from judgment, they filed this
Petition under Rule 47, only on 23 January 2014. Thus the remedy of
filing a petition for relief from judgment was lost, upon the
petitioners’ fault.

The first limitation or circumstance being
absent, it is clear that the remedy in Rule 47 is not available, hence
the Petition should be dismissed. It is not necessary to discuss the
presence or absence of the second limitation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Veloso (Chairperson) and Lantion, JJ., concur.

^[2] Rule 47, 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.

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.

^[3] G.R. No. 161122, 24 September 2012.

SECTION 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration.
– Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move
the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new
trial for one or more of the following causes materially affecting the
substantial rights of said party:

(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which
ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which
such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights; or

(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with
reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial, and
which if presented would probably alter the result.

Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for
reconsideration upon the grounds that the damages awarded are excessive,
that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final
order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law.

x x x

SEC. 3. Period of ordinary appeal. – The appeal shall be
taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final
order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the
appellants shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within
thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order. However, on
appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be taken within
forty-eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment or final order
appealed from. (A.M. No. 01-1-03-SC, 19 June 2001.)

The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for
new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a
motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.

x x x

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 judgments or final
order was entered, or subh 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.