ENGRACIA BACATE AMBERTI, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE EFICIO B. ACOSTA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH CLV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG, METRO MANILA, AND MA…

Amberti versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Engracia Bacate Amberti against the Court of Appeals, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, and her own daughter, Maria Teresa Amberti Talag. The dispute is a bitter controversy over inheritance: a mother who was removed as executrix of her late Italian husband's estate now seeks to annul the probate court's judgment awarding the residue of that estate to her daughter as universal heir. The case matters because it teaches when the withdrawal of a special civil action operates as a dismissal with prejudice, and how the bar of res judicata — the rule that a matter once finally adjudicated cannot be litigated again — cannot be evaded by merely changing the form of the action.

Procedural History

Pietro Amberti's holographic will was admitted to probate, and Engracia was named executrix. After eight years the probate court removed her for maladministration and replaced her with her daughter Maria Teresa. Engracia challenged that removal before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed her petition for lack of merit. Maria Teresa then moved to terminate the administration proceedings and to be declared universal heir. The trial court granted the motion in its judgment of January 10, 1986. Engracia's motion for reconsideration was denied on November 4, 1986 for having been filed long after the judgment had become final.

Engracia then filed a special civil action for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals, attacking those same two orders on grounds of lack of due process and grave abuse of discretion. Before the private respondent could comment, however, Engracia filed a motion to withdraw, stating she was no longer interested in pursuing the case. The Court of Appeals granted the withdrawal, and that resolution later became final, with entry of judgment issued and the case remanded for execution.

Engracia then had a change of heart. She filed a second action before the Court of Appeals, this time an original action for annulment of judgment, again seeking to annul the very same orders, now alleging extrinsic fraud. The Court of Appeals dismissed the second petition, holding that the earlier dismissal bound her and that she was estopped from disputing it. Hence this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Pietro Amberti, an Italian citizen, married Engracia Bacate in September 1965, and they had one child, Maria Teresa. In June 1970 Pietro died in Torino, Italy, leaving substantial properties in the Philippines and a holographic will designating Maria Teresa as his universal heir under Italian law. The will was admitted to probate in the Philippines in August 1971, and the widow Engracia was named executrix.

After eight years, the probate court removed Engracia for maladministration: she failed to submit an inventory or render an accounting for more than eight years, and failed to account for money received by the estate totalling more than seven million pesos. She was replaced by her daughter. Her challenge to that removal failed before the Court of Appeals, which found that the probate court had acted properly.

As new administratrix, Maria Teresa paid the estate and inheritance taxes and moved to terminate the proceedings and be declared universal heir. Her inventory disclosed that Engracia had already sold one half of a West Avenue property in Quezon City and had disposed of mining equipment from the marble business for a reported total of 687,500 pesos. The trial court then awarded the residue of the entire estate to Maria Teresa. Engracia's late motion for reconsideration, which for the first time invoked a claimed usufruct over one half of the estate, was denied as filed after finality.

Issues

• Whether or not the dismissal of the earlier petition for certiorari, upon the petitioner's own motion to withdraw, amounts to a dismissal with prejudice.
• Whether or not the petitioner is precluded by res judicata from bringing a second action based on the same subject matter and seeking the same relief.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Rule 62 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION 1. Preceding rules applicable in special civil actions. — The provisions of the preceding rules shall apply in special actions for interpleader, declaratory relief and similar remedies, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, eminent domain, foreclosure of mortgage, partition, forcible entry and detainer, and contempt, which are not inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the provisions of the rules relating to such special civil actions.

This provision makes the rules on dismissal of appeal apply, in a supplementary manner, to special civil actions such as the earlier petition for certiorari.

Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION 2. Effect of dismissal. — Fifteen (15) days after the dismissal of an appeal, the clerk shall return to the court below the record on appeal with a certificate under the seal of the court showing that the appeal has been dismissed. Upon the receipt of such certificate in the lower court the case shall stand there as though no appeal had ever been taken, and the judgment of the said court may be enforced with the additional costs allowed by the appellate court upon dismissing the appeal.

This fixes the effect of a dismissal: the case stands as though no appeal had ever been taken, and the judgment below may be enforced.

Section 4, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION 4. Withdrawal of appeal. — An appeal may be withdrawn as of right at any time before the filing of appellee's brief. After the brief is filed the withdrawal maybe allowed by the court in its discretion. The withdrawal of an appeal shall have the same effect as that of a dismissal in accordance with Section 2 of this rule.

This is the decisive link: a withdrawal carries the same effect as a dismissal, so the withdrawal of the earlier petition produced a dismissal with prejudice.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the dismissal was with prejudice. Applying the rules on dismissal of appeal in a supplementary manner, the Court ruled that upon the withdrawal of a petition in a special civil action before the answer or comment has been filed, the case stands as though no appeal had been taken, so that the judgment or order of the lower court being questioned becomes immediately final and executory. A resolution granting the withdrawal is therefore with prejudice, and the petitioner is precluded from bringing a second action based on the same subject matter. The Court stressed that the dismissal of the earlier petition bound the petitioner, and that she was estopped from disputing it by bringing another action and pretending it was different. By her withdrawal, she was also deemed to have waived any right to raise the issue of whether the judgment had been served on her counsel of record.

On the second issue, the Court held that the second petition was barred by res judicata. Both petitions rested on the same ground of alleged deprivation of due process and sought the same reliefs, namely the annulment of the January 10, 1986 judgment and the November 4, 1986 order. The Court declared that a party cannot evade the effects of res judicata by varying the form of his action or adopting a different method of presenting his case, as the petitioner attempted by filing an original action for annulment of judgment to obtain the same relief earlier sought in the withdrawn petition for certiorari.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, under Section 1, Rule 62, the preceding rules apply in a supplementary manner to special civil actions. Second, by express provision of Section 4, Rule 50, the withdrawal of an appeal has the same effect as a dismissal under Section 2, Rule 50, so that the case stands as though no appeal had ever been taken and the judgment below may be enforced. Third, applying these rules supplementarily, the withdrawal of a special civil action before the answer or comment is filed operates as a dismissal with prejudice, and the resolution granting the withdrawal precludes a second action on the same subject matter. Fourth, res judicata bars a party from evading the effects of a prior final dismissal by merely varying the form of the action or the method of presenting the case.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, with costs against the petitioner, and the decision was declared immediately executory.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the withdrawal of a special civil action before comment is filed is a dismissal with prejudice, and res judicata cannot be evaded by changing the form of the action. Examiners use this case on the effect of withdrawal of appeals and special civil actions, and on the bar of res judicata against a second action seeking the same relief.