Amberti v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pietro Amberti, an Italian citizen, married Engracia Bacate and had one daughter, Maria Teresa Amberti. Pietro died in Italy, leaving a holographic will designating Maria Teresa as his universal heir. The will was probated in the Philippines, and Engracia was appointed executrix but was later removed for maladministration, failure to submit an inventory, and failure to account for over P7,000,000.00. Maria Teresa was appointed as the new administratrix. Procedural History: Engracia's petition for certiorari to protest her removal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA) for lack of merit due to her failure to render an accounting. Subsequently, Maria Teresa, as administratrix, moved to terminate the administration proceedings and declare herself universal heir. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) awarded the residue of the estate to Maria Teresa. Engracia moved for reconsideration, questioning the will and asserting a usufructuary right, but the RTC denied it for being filed after the judgment had become final. Engracia then filed a petition for annulment of the RTC orders in the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 10786), alleging lack of due process due to improper notice. Before private respondent could comment, Engracia moved to withdraw this petition, which the CA dismissed. Engracia then filed another petition for annulment (CA-G.R. SP No. 10991), alleging extrinsic fraud in the manner of furnishing her with a copy of the motion to terminate administration and invalidating the inventory. The CA dismissed this second petition, holding that the dismissal of the first petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 10786) was with prejudice and barred the second action. The Petition: Engracia Bacate Amberti filed a petition for review of the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing her petition for annulment of the RTC orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 10786, a petition for certiorari, amounts to a dismissal with prejudice, thereby barring the subsequent action for annulment of judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 10991. Whether the second petition for annulment of judgment was barred by res judicata.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 10786 was with prejudice, and thus, the subsequent petition for annulment of judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 10991 was barred by res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 10786 was with prejudice: The Court held that the withdrawal of a petition for certiorari before the filing of the appellee's brief, as in CA-G.R. SP No. 10786, falls under the provisions of Section 4, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, which states that withdrawal of an appeal shall have the same effect as a dismissal. Section 2 of the same rule provides that upon dismissal of an appeal, the case shall stand as though no appeal had ever been taken, and the judgment of the lower court may be enforced. Applying these rules supplementarily to special civil actions, the withdrawal of the petition for certiorari before the comment was filed meant that the RTC's judgment and order became immediately final and executory. Therefore, the dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 10786 was with prejudice. On the issue of whether the second petition was barred by res judicata: The Court affirmed that the second petition for annulment of judgment (CA-G.R. SP No. 10991) was barred by res judicata. The Court reasoned that the petitioner could not evade the effects of res judicata by varying the form of her action. Both the earlier petition for certiorari and the subsequent petition for annulment of judgment were based on the same grounds (alleged deprivation of due process and extrinsic fraud) and sought the same relief (annulment or setting aside of the January 10, 1986 judgment and November 4, 1986 order of the trial court). The dismissal of the first petition with prejudice precluded the petitioner from raising the same issues again in a different guise. The Court emphasized that allowing such actions would permit litigants to trifle with the courts and waste judicial time.
Main Doctrine
A withdrawal of a petition for certiorari before the filing of an answer or comment is considered a dismissal with prejudice, barring a subsequent action based on the same subject matter due to res judicata.