Carreon v. Aguillon
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint for breach of contract, damages, and attorney's fees filed by respondent Mario Aguillon against petitioner Edgar T. Carreon and his wife. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the Carreon spouses in default for failing to file a responsive pleading and subsequently rendered a decision in favor of Aguillon, ordering them to pay damages and attorney's fees. This decision attained finality, leading to a writ of execution and the auction sale of the Carreon's property, which was purchased by respondent Betty P. Lopez. 2. Procedural History: Following the auction sale, Lopez filed a petition for cancellation of the Carreon's Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and the issuance of a new one in her name. The RTC granted this petition, ordering the cancellation of the original TCT and the issuance of a new TCT in Lopez's name. Subsequently, Lopez filed a petition for a writ of possession, which the RTC also granted. Carreon only became aware of these proceedings on June 22, 2017, when he received a letter from the City Government of Davao with the writ of possession attached. He then filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA). 3. The Petition: Carreon filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the CA, arguing lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud due to improper and invalid service of summons. The CA initially dismissed the petition on procedural grounds but later reconsidered and dismissed it on the merits, finding that the RTC had acquired jurisdiction. Carreon's subsequent motion for reconsideration was noted without action by the CA as a prohibited second motion. The present petition for review on certiorari seeks to assail the CA's dismissal of the annulment petition and its treatment of Carreon's motion for reconsideration, arguing that the CA erred in both respects and that the service of summons was indeed defective.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA correctly treated Carreon's March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration as a second motion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading. Whether the CA correctly dismissed the Annulment Petition based on its finding that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendants.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition, reversing and setting aside the CA's Resolutions dated February 19, 2018, and May 4, 2018. The Court directed the remand of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment to the CA for it to give due course, issue summons, and conduct trial for the reception of evidence pursuant to Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the prohibited second motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the CA erred in treating Carreon's March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration as a second motion for reconsideration. The Court explained that Carreon's earlier motion was filed in response to the CA's original Resolution dated July 28, 2017, which dismissed the petition on procedural grounds. The CA's subsequent Resolution dated February 19, 2018, reconsidered its original ruling, rectified the procedural infirmities, and, importantly, passed upon the merits of the Annulment Petition. Therefore, Carreon's March 8, 2018 motion was a first motion for reconsideration of the February 19, 2018 Resolution, which presented new legal grounds concerning the merits of the case. The prohibition against a second motion for reconsideration under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court applies only when the motion seeks to rehash arguments already passed upon in the first motion for reconsideration. Since the February 19, 2018 Resolution was a new ruling based on different grounds, the March 8, 2018 motion was not a prohibited second motion. On the merits of the Annulment Petition: The Court found that the CA erred in dismissing the Annulment Petition outright based on a blanket invocation of the presumption of regularity in official duties. The Court noted that defective service of summons is a recognized ground for annulment of judgment, as it negates the court's jurisdiction. The Court found that Carreon's argument of defective service of summons had at least a prima facie basis. Specifically, the records did not show earnest efforts to personally serve the summons, the return did not indicate the name of the son who allegedly received it, nor the address where service was made. Furthermore, Carreon explicitly attested that he has no son, and his only child is a daughter, who also executed an affidavit to this effect. The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity cannot arise when the official act is irregular on its face. Therefore, pursuant to Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 47 of the Rules, the CA should have given due course to the Annulment Petition, caused the service of summons, and conducted a trial to determine its merits.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration assailing a reconsidered ruling that addresses the merits of the case, which ruling is based on different legal grounds from the original ruling, should be treated as a first motion for reconsideration, and not a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.