GR 185396; (November, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185396 ; November 24, 2009
RUFINA FAJARDO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. ALBERTO COMANDANTE, SUBSTITUTED BY MARIALITA M. COMANDANTE, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the Fajardos, filed a complaint to annul a deed of sale and cancel a title, alleging forgery. Respondent Alberto Comandante moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, as the Fajardos did not set the case for pre-trial. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially denied the motion but later reconsidered and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Unsatisfied, Comandante filed another motion seeking dismissal with prejudice. The RTC granted this, dismissing the case with prejudice in an Order dated May 11, 2006.
The Fajardos did not file a motion for reconsideration of the May 11, 2006 Order, nor did they file a notice of appeal. Instead, months later, they filed a motion asking the RTC to treat Comandante’s underlying motion as a “mere scrap of paper” for alleged non-compliance with the three-day notice rule, arguing the resulting dismissal order was void. The RTC denied this, noting the Fajardos’ inaction had rendered the dismissal order final. Their subsequent petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals was dismissed.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in not declaring its May 11, 2006 Order void due to an alleged defect in the motion that prompted it.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The core legal principle is that a final and executory order cannot be collaterally attacked. The RTC’s Order of May 11, 2006, dismissing the case with prejudice, became final after the Fajardos, who received a copy, failed to file a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal within the reglementary period. A final order can only be challenged via a direct attack, such as an appeal or a timely motion for reconsideration. The Fajardos’ belated attempt to nullify the order by attacking the procedural regularity of a prior motion constitutes an impermissible collateral attack. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The Fajardos’ protracted negligence in prosecuting their case and their failure to avail of the proper remedies barred them from assailing the order’s validity. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion; it merely upheld the finality of its judgment.