Abrenica v. Law Firm of Abrenica
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case stems from a dispute between partners of the law firm Abrenica, Tungol and Tibayan. Respondent partners, Attys. Danilo N. Tungol and Abelardo M. Tibayan, filed two cases against petitioner Atty. Erlando A. Abrenica with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1998. The first case (SEC Case No. 05-98-5959) alleged that petitioner refused to return partnership funds from the sale of a property in Lemery, Batangas. The second case (SEC Case No. 10-98-6123) sought the recovery of retainer fees received by petitioner from two firm clients and a cash advance petitioner obtained in 1997. These cases were later transferred to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City due to a change in jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies. Procedural History: The RTC of Quezon City, Branch 226, rendered a Consolidated Decision on November 23, 2004, ordering Atty. Erlando Abrenica to account for and remit P4,524,000.00 plus interest from the Lemery property sale, and to account for and remit P320,000.00 plus interest from retainer fees, along with a P25,000.00 cash advance plus interest. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal under Rule 41, but respondents argued that the correct mode of appeal was a petition for review under Rule 43, as prescribed by A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC for intra-corporate disputes. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied petitioner's subsequent motion to admit a Petition for Review under Rule 43 and his motion for reconsideration. This Court, in G.R. No. 169420, dismissed petitioner's appeal, affirming the CA's dismissal of his Rule 43 petition, holding that the Rule 41 appeal was the wrong remedy and that the RTC decision had become final and executory. The Petition: Petitioners, Spouses Erlando A. Abrenica and Joena B. Abrenica, filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 98679), assailing the merits of the RTC's decision and alleging lack of jurisdiction. The CA dismissed this petition, finding that the grounds raised were on the merits of the case and that the remedy of annulment was unavailable as ordinary remedies had already been lost through petitioners' own fault. Petitioners then filed another Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 99719), this time alleging extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The CA dismissed this petition, noting that the grounds were substantially the same as those previously raised and that the alleged errors were merely errors in the exercise of jurisdiction, not a lack thereof. The CA further denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, finding it filed out of time and reiterating that the grounds were already resolved. The present petition before this Court assails these CA Resolutions, arguing denial of due process and reiterating the grounds of extrinsic fraud and violation of Joena's due process, and claiming their motion for reconsideration was timely filed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment for being the wrong remedy and for raising issues on the merits of the case. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment. Whether petitioner Joena Abrenica was denied due process. Whether petitioners committed forum shopping. Whether the motion for reconsideration was filed on time.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated August 2, 2007, and October 30, 2007, in CA-G.R. SP No. 99719. The Court found that the petitioners were attempting to pursue remedies that were no longer available due to their own fault, and that the grounds raised did not constitute extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the availability of the remedy of annulment of judgment and the grounds for annulment of judgment: The Court reiterated that the rules of procedure are meant to achieve justice and not to thwart it. Petitioners could not defy the pronouncement of this Court in G.R. No. 169420 by pursuing remedies that were no longer available. The CA correctly ruled that the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 was not available because the petitioners had already availed of the remedy of appeal under Rule 41, which was dismissed due to their own actions. The RTC decision became final and executory through the fault of petitioner Erlando Abrenica when he filed an appeal under Rule 41 instead of Rule 43, and when he filed a Petition for Review directly with the CA without waiting for the resolution of pending issues before the RTC. As stated in Enriquez v. Court of Appeals, an appeal is a purely statutory right, and an appealing party must strictly comply with the rules. The Court emphasized that the grounds for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 are limited to extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The allegations raised by the petitioners, which delved into the merits of the case and the appreciation of evidence by the trial court, did not fall under these grounds. Errors in judgment are merely errors of judgment, which are the proper subject of an appeal, not annulment. The CA correctly noted that the court a quo had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, and that what the petitioners were complaining about was a possible error in the exercise of jurisdiction, not an issue of jurisdiction itself. On the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment: No specific ratio was provided for this issue, but it is implied that the denial was correct based on the reasons for dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment. On petitioner Joena Abrenica's claim of denial of due process: The Court found that petitioner Joena Abrenica's claim of denial of due process was due to her own inaction. After filing an Affidavit of Third Party Claim and her husband filing an Urgent Omnibus Motion raising similar issues, she subsequently failed to pursue her third-party claim or any other available remedy. Her failure to act led the Court to believe she was no longer interested in her case. Furthermore, the Court noted that some of the stepchildren she claimed to represent were already of legal age, and she lacked the necessary special power of attorney to represent them. Additionally, the Court clarified that properties acquired before the marriage, including the vehicles and the house and lot, do not form part of the absolute community property under Article 92, paragraph (3) of the Family Code, especially when there are legitimate descendants from a former marriage. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court found that petitioners were not clearly guilty of forum shopping. Civil Case No. 09-1323-MK, filed with the RTC of Marikina City, questioned the proceedings of the sheriff in executing the judgment, while the present case questioned the merits of the RTC's Decision itself. These cases had different causes of action, thus negating the element of forum shopping, which involves filing multiple suits for the same cause of action to obtain a favorable judgment. On the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time. The last day for filing was August 27, 2007. The CA found that the grounds stated in the motion were merely recycled and rehashed propositions that had already been dispensed with. The petitioners' assertion that August 27, 2007, was a holiday, thus extending the deadline to August 28, was not substantiated or accepted by the CA.
Main Doctrine
A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is not available when the remedy of appeal, though dismissed due to the petitioner's own fault, was still available. Furthermore, allegations of errors in the appreciation of evidence or judgment do not constitute extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction, which are the only grounds for annulment of judgment.