CASE 2013-0001: LETICIA DIONA, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MARCELINA DIONA, VS. ROMEO A. BALANGUE, SONNY A. BALANGUE, REYNALDO A. BALANGUE, AND ESTEBAN A. BALANGUE, JR., (G.R. NO. 173559, 07 JANUARY 2013, CASTILLO J.) SUBJECT/S: ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 47 OF THE RULES OF COURT (BRIEF TITLE: DIONA VS. BALANGUE)
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
FOR FAILURE TO FILE AN ANSWER RESPONDENT WAS DECLARED IN DEFAULT. RTC RENDERED JUDGMENT AWARDING INTEREST OF 5% PER MONTH. BUT PETITIONER WAS ONLY ASKING FOR 12%. WAS THE RTC CORRECT?
NO. IN DEFAULT CASES THE RELIEF GRANTED MUST NOT BE MORE THAN WHAT IS PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
THE JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTION SALE WAS HELD. RESPONDENT FILED MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT AND SET ASIDE EXECUTION SALE UNDER RULE 47. RTC AMENDED ITS JUDGMENT BY REDUCING THE INTEREST TO 12%. WAS RTC CORRECT?
NO. SINCE THE PORTION OF THE DECISION ON INTEREST WAS VOID, THE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE AMENDED. THAT PORTION ON INTEREST MUST BE DECLARED VOID FIRST.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
WHAT IS ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 47?
IT IS A REMEDY GRANTED ONLY UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A PARTY, WITHOUT FAULT ON HIS PART, HAS FAILED TO AVAIL OF THE ORDINARY REMEDIES OF NEW TRIAL, APPEAL, PETITION FOR RELIEF OR OTHER APPROPRIATE REMEDIES.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CAN IT BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR A REMEDY WHICH WAS LOST DUE TO A PARTY’S NEGLECT OF PROMPTLY AVAILING SUCH REMEDY?
NO.
THE UNDERLYING REASON IS TRACEABLE TO THE NOTION THAT ANNULLING FINAL JUDGMENTS GOES AGAINST THE GRAIN OF FINALITY OF JUDGMENT. LITIGATION MUST END AND TERMINATE SOMETIME AND SOMEWHERE, AND IT IS ESSENTIAL TO AN EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE THAT ONCE A JUDGMENT HAS BECOME FINAL, THE ISSUE OR CAUSE INVOLVED THEREIN SHOULD BE LAID TO REST.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS IN AVAILING OF RULE 47?
THERE ARE TWO GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 2, RULE 47: EXTRINSIC FRAUD AND LACK OF JURISDICTION.
BUT JURISPRUDENCE RECOGNIZES LACK OF DUE PROCESS AS ADDITIONAL GROUND TO ANNUL A JUDGMENT.
IN ARCELONA V. COURT OF APPEALS THIS COURT DECLARED THAT A FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT MAY STILL BE SET ASIDE IF, UPON MERE INSPECTION THEREOF, ITS PATENT NULLITY CAN BE SHOWN FOR HAVING BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR FOR LACK OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
WAS THERE LACK OF DUE PROCESS IN THE CASE?
YES IN THE GRANT OF 5% INTEREST WAY BEYOND THE 12% INTEREST SOUGHT IN THE COMPLAINT.
IT IS SETTLED THAT COURTS CANNOT GRANT A RELIEF NOT PRAYED FOR IN THE PLEADINGS OR IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS BEING SOUGHT BY THE PARTY. THEY CANNOT ALSO GRANT A RELIEF WITHOUT FIRST ASCERTAINING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN SUPPORT THEREOF. DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRE THAT JUDGMENTS MUST CONFORM TO AND BE SUPPORTED BY THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN COURT.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
WHY IS IT THAT IN DEFAULT CASES ONLY THE ALLEGATIONS OF A COMPLAINT MUST PROVIDE THE MEASURE OF RECOVERY?
TO PREVENT SURPRISE TO THE DEFENDANT.
THE RAISON D’ÊTRE IN LIMITING THE EXTENT OF RELIEF THAT MAY BE GRANTED IS THAT IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD NOT FILE AN ANSWER AND ALLOW HIMSELF TO BE DECLARED IN DEFAULT HAD HE KNOWN THAT THE PLAINTIFF WILL BE ACCORDED A RELIEF GREATER THAN OR DIFFERENT IN KIND FROM THAT SOUGHT IN THE COMPLAINT.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
BUT SUPPOSE THE DEFENDANT IS NOT DECLARED IN DEFAULT, CAN RELIEF BEYOND WHAT IS PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT BE GRANTED.
YES BECAUSE AMENDMENT TO CONFORM TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS ALLOWED.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ASSUMING THAT 5% WAS PROPERTY ALLEGED AND PROVEN. IS JUDGMENT GRANTING 5% INTEREST PROPER?
NO. IT REMAINS UNCONSCIONABLY EXCESSIVE AND OUGHT TO BE EQUITABLY REDUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE. IN BULOS, JR. V.
YASUMA (G.R. NO. 164159, JULY 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 727, 742, G.R. NO. 173559), THIS COURT HELD: IN THE CASE OF RUIZ V. COURT OF APPEALS, CITING THE CASES OF MEDEL V. COURT OF APPEALS, GARCIA V. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES BAUTISTA V. PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND THE RECENT CASE OF SPOUSES SOLANGON V. SALAZAR, THIS COURT CONSIDERED THE 3% INTEREST PER MONTH OR 36% INTEREST PER ANNUM AS EXCESSIVE AND UNCONSCIONABLE. THEREBY, THE COURT, IN THE SAID CASE, EQUITABLY REDUCED THE RATE OF INTEREST TO 1% INTEREST PER MONTH OR 12% INTEREST PER ANNUM.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL WAS NEGLIGENT IN HANDLING THE CASE. WHAT IS THE RULE ON NEGLIGENCE OF COUNSEL?
ORDINARILY, THE MISTAKE, NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF COMPETENCE OF COUNSEL BINDS THE CLIENT. THIS IS BASED ON THE RULE THAT ANY ACT PERFORMED BY A COUNSEL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS GENERAL OR IMPLIED AUTHORITY IS REGARDED AS AN ACT OF HIS CLIENT.
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE?
YES. WHEN THE LAWYER IS GROSSLY NEGLIGENT IN HIS DUTY TO MAINTAIN HIS CLIENT’S CAUSE AND SUCH AMOUNTED TO A DEPRIVATION OF HIS CLIENT’S PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. IN WHICH CASE, THE COURTS MUST STEP IN AND ACCORD RELIEF TO A CLIENT WHO SUFFERED THEREBY.
IN FINE, RESPONDENTS DID NOT LOSE THE REMEDIES OF NEW TRIAL, APPEAL, PETITION FOR RELIEF AND OTHER REMEDIES THROUGH THEIR OWN FAULT. IT CAN ONLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR ERSTWHILE COUNSEL WHICH PREVENTED THEM FROM PURSUING SUCH REMEDIES.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CAN RESPONDENTS BE BLAMED FOR RELYING TOO MUCH ON THEIR FORMER COUNSEL?
NO.
CLIENTS HAVE REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS THAT THEIR LAWYER WOULD AMPLY PROTECT THEIR INTEREST DURING THE TRIAL OF THE CASE.
HERE, RESPONDENTS ARE PLAIN AND ORDINARY PEOPLE X X X WHO ARE TOTALLY IGNORANT OF THE INTRICACIES AND TECHNICALITIES OF LAW AND LEGAL PROCEDURES. BEING SO, THEY COMPLETELY RELIED UPON AND TRUSTED THEIR FORMER COUNSEL TO APPROPRIATELY ACT AS THEIR INTEREST MAY LAWFULLY WARRANT AND REQUIRE.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 