Victory Liner v. Malinias
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a vehicular collision on March 19, 1996, in La Union, involving a bus owned by petitioner Victory Liner, Inc., and a truck used by respondent Michael Malinias. The collision resulted in damage to both vehicles. Respondent Malinias filed a civil suit for sum of money and damages against Victory Liner, Inc. and its bus driver, Leoncio Bulaong, seeking P47,180.00 for the truck's repair and P15,000.00 for lost income, along with exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The bus driver was later dropped as a defendant after service of summons failed and the respondent waived his cause of action against him. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) initially ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding P82,180.00. This judgment became final and executory after the MTC denied Victory Liner's motion for reconsideration due to a defective notice of hearing, deeming it a mere scrap of paper that did not toll the appeal period. Victory Liner's subsequent Notice of Appeal was also dismissed by the MTC as filed out of time. A Petition for Relief from Judgment filed with the MTC was denied for being belatedly filed. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was also dismissed, as the RTC found no grave abuse of discretion and reiterated the finality of the MTC judgment. Victory Liner then filed a Petition for Certiorari to Annul Judgment under Rule 47 with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the RTC orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition outright due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping, and later denied the motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Victory Liner, Inc. filed the present petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals and the Orders of the RTC. The petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing its petition for annulment of judgment due to alleged defects in the verification and certification against forum shopping. It contends that its counsel was duly authorized to file the petition and that substantial compliance should have been considered. The petitioner also seeks to have the RTC's orders, particularly the one directing the issuance of a writ of execution, annulled, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The core of the petition is to have the case remanded for a proper presentation of its defense, asserting a violation of due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment on the grounds of defective verification and certification against forum shopping, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment on the ground that extrinsic fraud was already availed of or could have been availed of in a petition for relief. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of a writ of execution without resolving petitioner's motion for reconsideration, considering the procedural missteps of the petitioner and the availability of other remedies. On the nature of appeal and remedies, and the Court of Appeals' reasoning regarding verification and certification.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment is ultimately correct, despite some errors in its reasoning regarding the verification and certification requirements.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for annulment of judgment by the Court of Appeals and the availability of remedies: The Court found that while the Court of Appeals erred in its reasoning regarding the verification and certification against forum shopping requirements, its ultimate dismissal of the petition was correct because the petition for annulment of judgment was fundamentally flawed due to the petitioner's procedural missteps in the lower courts. The Court also agreed with the Court of Appeals that the ground of extrinsic fraud could have been availed of in a petition for relief from judgment, which is a bar to an action for annulment of judgment under Section 2 of Rule 47. On the procedural missteps of the petitioner and the availability of remedies: The Court meticulously detailed the petitioner's failure to avail of proper remedies. The MTC judgment became final and executory because the motion for reconsideration was a "mere scrap of paper" due to the defective notice of hearing, thus failing to toll the period to appeal. Instead of filing a special civil action for certiorari or a petition for relief from judgment, petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which was correctly denied as the judgment was already final. The subsequent Petition for Relief from Judgment was filed out of time. The petition for certiorari with the RTC was also dismissed, and the RTC's order for execution was upheld. The petition for annulment of judgment with the CA was ill-advised, as an ordinary appeal from the RTC's dismissal of the certiorari petition would have been more appropriate, and an annulment of the RTC rulings would not have annulled the MTC judgment itself. Procedural rules provide a rational and orderly method for appeal and relief. Petitioner's failure to timely pursue these remedies, such as a special civil action for certiorari or a petition for relief from judgment, led to the finality of the MTC judgment. Petitioner should have first sought to remove the "cloud" on its right to appeal by availing of these remedies before filing a notice of appeal. An action to annul a judgment of an MTC should be filed with the RTC, not the Court of Appeals, further complicating petitioner's recourse. On the nature of appeal and remedies, and the Court of Appeals' reasoning regarding verification and certification: The Court reiterated that appeal is a statutory right that must be exercised within prescribed limits. Petitioner's persistent pursuit of the wrong remedial tack, despite the clear finality of the MTC judgment, meant that it could not avail of further recourse. The Court emphasized that the lower courts consistently recognized the finality of the MTC judgment, and petitioner's actions did not provide a basis for its annulment. The Court concluded that all the errors could have been avoided if petitioner had recognized the finality of the MTC judgment and chosen the appropriate remedies available under the rules. While the Court found the Court of Appeals' reasoning on the verification and certification requirements to be flawed, it did not grant the petition on this ground alone. The Court pointed out that the Certificate of Authority was issued before the filing of the petition, and the subsequent submission of the certificate the next day should have been considered substantial compliance, especially given the relaxed application of the rule on substantial compliance in recent jurisprudence. However, this did not cure the fundamental procedural defects in the petitioner's case.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration that lacks a notice of hearing is considered a mere scrap of paper and does not toll the period to appeal. Subsequent procedural remedies must be timely availed of, and the pursuit of an appeal after a judgment has become final and executory, without first setting aside the finality, is procedurally flawed.