HEIRS OF JUAN VISAYA, NAMELY: PEDRO PANGANIBAN, BASILIO PANGANIBAN, AND CATALINO PANGANIBAN, HEIRS OF DOMINGO VISAYA, REPRESENTED BY MARCELA VISAYA, PETITIONERS, V. HEIRS OF VIC…
ELBINIAS, J.:
However, the Petition[4] at bench is defective and dismissible because only judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of the Regional Trial Courts can be annulled by the Court of Appeals under Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides:
“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.” (Emphasis supplied)
That only such judgments or final orders and resolutions can be anulled by the Court of Appeals is also pursuant to the Supreme Court’s declaration in Valentin P. Fraginal, Tomas P. Fraginal and Angelina Fraginal-Quino vs. The Heirs of Toribia Belmonte Parañal, represented by Pedro Parañal, Felisa Parañal, Abraham Parañal, Irenea Acabado and Josefa Estoy[5], as follows:
“The Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed by Fraginal, et al. before the CA failed to meet the foregoing conditions.
First, it sought the annulment of the PARAD Decision when Section 1 of Rule 47 clearly limits the subject matter of petitions for annulment to final judgments and orders rendered by Regional Trial Courts in civil actions. Final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial tribunals or administrative bodies such as the National Labor Relations Commission, the Ombudsman, the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the President, and, in this case, the PARAD, are not susceptible to petitions for annulment under Rule 47.
Speaking through Justice Jose C. Vitug, the Court, in Macalalag v. Ombudsman, ratiocinated:
Rule 47, entitled ‘Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions,’ is a new provision under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure albeit the remedy has long been given imprimatur by the courts. The rule covers ‘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 could no longer be availed of through no fault of the petitioner.’ An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is rendered. The concern that the remedy could so easily be resorted to as an instrument to delay a final and executory judgment, has prompted safeguards to be put in place in order to avoid an abuse of the rule. Thus, the annulment of judgment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, and the remedy 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 therefrom, or (2) where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The rule is settled that an action for Annulment of Judgment is “an extraordinary remedy, which is not to be granted indiscriminately by the court”[6]. This is especially so, considering that “[i]t is a recourse equitable in character and allowed only in exceptional cases.”[7]
GIVEN ALL THESE, the Petition at bench is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dicdican (Chairman) and Paredes, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-18
[2] Rollo, pp. 25-28
[3] Rollo, pp. 25-28
[4] Rollo, pp. 3-18
[5] G.R. NO. 150207, February 23, 2007
[6] Andrew B. Nudo vs. Hon. Amado S. Caguioa, et. al., G.R. No. 176906, August 4, 2009
[7] Republic of the Philippines vs. Technological Advocates for Agro-Forest Programs Association, Inc., G.R. No. 165333, February 9, 2010