ALICIA JIMENEZ RIVERO, ANA JIMENEZ GACUTAN, AMELIA JIMENEZ GABUAT, PRECILA JIMENEZ RAGADI, AVENIA JIMENEZ VALDEZ, ARSENIA JIMENEZ VALDEZ, PEDRO MODESTO JIMENEZ AND AZCELA JIMENE…

Rivero versus Jimenez

The Case

This is the case of Rivero versus Jimenez, a petition for annulment of judgment filed by the Jimenez heirs — Alicia Jimenez Rivero, Ana Jimenez Gacutan, Amelia Jimenez Gabuat, Precila Jimenez Ragadi, Avenia Jimenez Valdez, Arsenia Jimenez Valdez, Pedro Modesto Jimenez, and Azcela Jimenez — who sought to annul a decision of the Regional Trial Court which they claimed was a void judgment. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact lesson on the finality of dismissal, on the impropriety of filing an identical petition after an earlier one has been dismissed, and on the doctrine of stare decisis — the rule that a court adheres to a principle once laid down, and applies it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same.

Procedural History

The petitioners first filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with an urgent prayer for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals dismissed that petition outright in a Minute Resolution dated October 2, 2013. The petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration, and the resolution lapsed into finality. On June 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment.

On June 20, 2014, the petitioners filed another petition for annulment of judgment. The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution requiring counsel for the petitioners to rectify formal deficiencies in the petition and to explain why the petition should still be entertained, since an identical petition had earlier been dismissed outright. The petitioners' counsel filed a Compliance on July 9, 2014, arguing that because the first petition was dismissed outright, the Court of Appeals was not given the opportunity to study the case closely and discern that the contested decision of the Regional Trial Court was a void judgment. The Court of Appeals then resolved the matter in the decision now before us.

Facts

The petitioners were the Jimenez heirs, who sought the annulment of a decision of the Regional Trial Court on the ground that it was a void judgment. To that end, they filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the Court of Appeals, docketed as a special proceeding.

The Court of Appeals dismissed that first petition outright in a Minute Resolution dated October 2, 2013. The petitioners did not move for reconsideration, so the dismissal became final, and an Entry of Judgment was issued on June 3, 2014.

Undeterred, the petitioners filed a second, identical petition for annulment of judgment on June 20, 2014. When required to explain why the second petition should be entertained, their counsel conceded that the first petition had been dismissed outright, but insisted that the dismissal meant the Court of Appeals never had the chance to study the case closely and see that the trial court's decision was void.

Issues

• Whether or not the second petition for annulment of judgment, identical to the first petition that was dismissed outright and which dismissal had become final, should be entertained.
• Whether or not the filing of the identical second petition amounted to forum shopping and circumvention of the law.
• Whether or not the doctrine of stare decisis barred the petitioners from relitigating the same principle of law on substantially the same facts.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory provision; it rests on the Rules of Court governing annulment of judgment and on settled jurisprudence. The Court cites the rule that a dismissal, even one grounded on technicalities, is still a dismissal, and that the Rules may be relaxed only when persuasive reasons exist:

While the dismissal of CA-G.R. S.P. No. 130468 was due to technicalities, nonetheless, it is still a dismissal and it is only when persuasive reasons exist that the Rules may be relaxed to spare a litigant of an injustice not commensurate to his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.

This bears on the case because it forecloses the petitioners' excuse that the outright dismissal of their first petition was a mere technicality that left the merits unstudied.

The Court also invokes the doctrine of stare decisis, quoting its formulation:

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, when the court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and property are the same.

This bears on the case because the second petition raised the same principle of law on substantially the same facts as the first.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court of Appeals refused to entertain the second petition. The first petition had been dismissed outright, the petitioners did not move for reconsideration, and the dismissal lapsed into finality with an Entry of Judgment. The Court held that the dismissal, though due to technicalities, was still a dismissal, and that the Rules may be relaxed only when persuasive reasons exist to spare a litigant an injustice not commensurate to his failure to comply with procedure. No such reason was shown.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioners were circumventing the law by filing an identical petition for annulment of judgment, which was even tantamount to forum shopping.

On the third issue, the Court applied the doctrine of stare decisis, holding that when a court has once laid down a principle of law applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and property are the same. The petitioners' rationale in their Compliance, and the petition itself, were therefore denied for lack of merit.

Doctrine

A dismissal, even one grounded on technicalities, is still a dismissal; the Rules may be relaxed to spare a litigant an injustice not commensurate to his failure to comply with procedure only when persuasive reasons exist. A party who fails to move for reconsideration of an outright dismissal allows the dismissal to lapse into finality, and an Entry of Judgment may then issue.

The filing of an identical petition after an earlier one has been dismissed outright is a circumvention of the law and is tantamount to forum shopping. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, when a court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and property are the same.

Disposition

The Court of Appeals denied the petition and the petitioners' rationale in their Compliance for lack of merit, with Justices Garcia and Bueser concurring.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a dismissal, even on technicalities, is still a dismissal, and that an identical petition filed after finality is forum shopping. Examiners use this case to test finality of dismissal, forum shopping, and the doctrine of stare decisis.