GR 156878; (July, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156878 ; July 31, 2007
EMILIANA S. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. ANTONIO C. ALFANE as Judge of RTC Branch 9, Legaspi City and ANTONIO MIRABEL, JR., Respondents.
FACTS
Antonio Mirabel, Jr. filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of checks and damages against Emiliana S. dela Cruz. After being granted an extension, dela Cruz’s counsel failed to file an Answer, leading the trial court to declare her in default and render a judgment on the pleadings against her. Her Omnibus Motion to lift the default was denied. She appealed to the Court of Appeals, but her appeal was dismissed for failure to file the required appellant’s brief within the extended periods granted. The Supreme Court subsequently denied her petition for review, affirming that she was bound by her counsel’s negligence and that the trial court’s decision had become final.
Subsequently, dela Cruz filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals, alleging the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and committed grave abuse of discretion in hastily rendering judgment. The Court of Appeals dismissed this petition, ruling it was barred by res judicata, as the Supreme Court had already affirmed the finality of the trial court’s judgment. Her motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is an exceptional, equitable remedy available only when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, or petition for relief are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner, and solely on grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. In this case, an ordinary appeal was available to dela Cruz. She availed of it, but her appeal was validly dismissed due to her counsel’s failure to file the brief. The negligence of counsel binds the client. The finality of the judgment via that dismissed appeal precludes relitigation under the doctrine of res judicata.
Her belated claims—that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or gravely abused its discretion—are issues that should have been raised in her initial appeal before the Court of Appeals. Having failed to do so, she cannot resurrect them through a petition for annulment, which is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the petition was an improper attempt to litigate the same cause anew. Therefore, the resolutions of the Court of Appeals were affirmed.