G.R. No. 141241 November 22, 2005
Republic of the Philippines, through its trustee, the Asset Privatization Trust, Petitioner, vs. “G” Holdings, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

The Republic, through the Asset Privatization Trust (APT), entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with respondent “G” Holdings, Inc. for the sale of shares in Maricalum Mining Corporation. A dispute arose regarding the commencement date for installment payments. “G” Holdings filed a complaint for specific performance. During pre-trial, both parties, through counsel, submitted the case for decision as involving purely a question of law. The trial court ruled in favor of “G” Holdings.
The Republic, through the Solicitor General, filed a notice of appeal but erroneously filed it directly with the Court of Appeals instead of with the trial court that rendered the judgment. No appeal was perfected. Years later, the Republic, now through the APT itself, filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA, alleging the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by rendering a decision prior to the submission of the Republic’s formal offer of evidence and that the Solicitor General’s procedural error constituted extrinsic fraud.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, primarily on the procedural ground that the petition was filed without the requisite imprimatur from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). By law, the OSG has the exclusive authority to represent the Republic in legal proceedings. The APT, as a mere trustee, had no independent personality to file the petition without the OSG’s approval, rendering the petition dismissible.
On the substantive merits, the annulment was properly denied. The grounds for annulment under Rule 47 are limited to extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The alleged error by the Solicitor General in filing the notice of appeal with the wrong court did not constitute extrinsic fraud, as it was not a deceitful act committed by the prevailing party (“G” Holdings) to prevent a fair submission of the case. It was an internal error of the Republic’s own counsel. Furthermore, the trial court clearly had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Any alleged irregularity in rendering judgment based on the submitted records, after the parties themselves agreed to submit the case for decision, constituted at most an error of judgment correctable by timely appeal. Since the Republic failed to perfect its appeal, the decision became final and executory. Annulment of judgment cannot substitute for a lost appeal.