GR 128686; (May, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128686 ; May 28, 2004
HONORATO ESPINOSA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, Branch 23, RTC Iloilo City and Sps. RODOLFO and VIOLETA ALCANTARA, respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Rodolfo and Violeta Alcantara filed an ejectment case against Honorato Espinosa, alleging his restaurant encroached on their titled lot. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the complaint, finding no encroachment. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), with the parties’ consent, ordered a Bureau of Lands relocation survey. The survey confirmed the encroachment. The RTC reversed the MTC and ordered Espinosa to vacate. Espinosa’s subsequent petition for review to the Court of Appeals (CA) was denied. This Court also denied his petition in G.R. No. 111752, which became final.
Less than three months after finality, Espinosa, through new counsel, filed a petition for annulment of the RTC judgment with the CA, alleging extrinsic fraud and denial of due process. He claimed the RTC’s order for a relocation survey on appeal was fraudulent. In his verification, he failed to disclose the prior petitions and their dispositions.
ISSUE
(1) Whether the RTC Decision may be annulled on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due process. (2) Whether Espinosa and his counsel are guilty of forum-shopping.
RULING
The petition is denied. The RTC decision cannot be annulled. Annulment is an exceptional remedy. Extrinsic fraud exists when a fraudulent act by the prevailing party, committed outside trial, prevents the defeated party from presenting his case. Espinosa failed to prove this. The relocation survey was ordered by the RTC to ascertain a factual issue—the exact location of the structure. This procedure was consented to by all parties and their then-counsel. It was a lawful exercise of the court’s power to amend its processes for justice and not an act instigated by the Alcantaras. There was no denial of due process as Espinosa and his counsel participated in the survey and subsequent compromise discussions.
Espinosa and his present counsel are guilty of forum-shopping. Forum-shopping exists when a party, to increase chances of favorable judgment, repetitively files suits raising identical causes, subject matter, and issues. Espinosa’s petition for annulment sought the same relief—reversal of the ejectment order—as his prior petitions. His certification of non-forum shopping was defective for concealing the history of the case. This blatant disregard of judicial process warrants contempt. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal but modified the penalty, directing the CA to initiate proper indirect contempt proceedings under Rule 71 to afford the respondents a hearing.