So v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner David So was convicted in Criminal Cases Nos. 8345 and 8346 for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) based on two checks issued to Faustino Puzon, which were dishonored for "Account Closed". At the time of issuance in 1983, Ministry of Justice Circular No. 4 (1981) was in effect, stating that checks issued to guarantee an obligation were not criminal offenses. This circular was later reversed by Ministry Circular No. 12 (1984), which declared that such defense would no longer be valid for checks issued after its effectivity. Procedural History: The trial court convicted petitioner on May 19, 1987. This conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and subsequently by the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court decision became final, a warrant of arrest was issued. Petitioner filed an "Urgent Motion for Declaration of Nullity of Judgment" invoking the doctrine in Co v. Court of Appeals (227 SCRA 444), arguing his checks were guarantee checks and that the ruling in Que v. People should not be given retrospective effect. The trial court denied this motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking to enjoin the execution of the trial court's judgment. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding that Co v. Court of Appeals did not apply because the trial court had ruled the checks were issued in exchange for cash. This led to the present petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the ruling in Co v. Court of Appeals applies to petitioner's case. Whether the trial court's denial of the motion for declaration of nullity of judgment was proper. Whether the Supreme Court's prior minute resolution in G.R. No. 108209 constitutes res judicata.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on July 5, 1999, is LIFTED. The case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 146 for execution of judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of Co v. Court of Appeals: The Supreme Court held that the ruling in Co v. Court of Appeals, which dealt with guarantee checks and the retrospective application of MOJ Circular No. 4, does not apply to petitioner's case. This is because the trial court, in its decision dated July 24, 1987, explicitly found that the checks were issued in exchange for cash, not as a guarantee. This factual finding was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and subsequently by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 108209. Therefore, the premise of the Co case, which involved guarantee checks, is absent here. On the denial of the motion for declaration of nullity of judgment: The trial court correctly denied the motion. The Supreme Court reiterated that an action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court may only be based on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Neither of these grounds was present in petitioner's motion. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional Trial Courts, as provided by Section 9 of BP 129. On res judicata: The Supreme Court found that the issues raised by the petitioner in the present case were exactly the same issues that were passed upon and resolved in G.R. No. 108209, which was a petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioner. In that case, the petitioner argued that the checks were issued in payment of a loan, were mere guarantee checks covered by MOJ Circular No. 4, and that MOJ Circular No. 12 could not be given retroactive effect. The Supreme Court's minute resolution denying due course to that petition constituted a disposition on the merits and thus attained finality, creating res judicata and barring the relitigation of the same issues. The Court emphasized that litigation must end, and the rule of finality of judgment is grounded on public policy and sound practice, preventing the absolute nullity of a judgment even if there was an alleged erroneous application of a legal principle.
Main Doctrine
A prior final and executory judgment, even if allegedly based on an erroneous application of a legal principle, is binding and cannot be set aside under the well-entrenched rule of finality of judgment. The doctrine in Co v. Court of Appeals, concerning guarantee checks, does not apply when the trial court has already determined that the checks were issued in exchange for cash.