G.R. No. 149839 , August 29, 2002
Dra. Nerea Ramirez-Jongco, Aurora J. Cifra, Flordeliza J. Arcila, Ethelinda J. Holt, Lourdes J. Cifra, Bienvenido R. Jongco, Antonio Jongco, Jr., and Jose Jongco, represented by Ermelinda C. Manaloto, Petitioners, vs. Ismael A. Veloso III, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners filed an unlawful detainer case against respondent with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City for failure to pay rentals. The MeTC ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering respondent to vacate and pay rental arrearages. Respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which modified the decision, ordering payment of arrearages and giving respondent an option to stay or vacate, subject to reimbursement by petitioners for one-half the value of improvements. The RTC later increased the value of the improvement. Petitioners intended to appeal the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). They were granted an extension to file a Petition for Review but instead filed an “Urgent Petition to Avail of the Petition for Certiorari Instead of Petition for Review,” which the CA denied, stating they could still file a certiorari petition subject to new fees. Petitioners failed to file the certiorari petition. Instead, they filed a “Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Decision and Order with Damages” (a Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47). The CA dismissed this petition on two grounds: (1) the Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping was signed by Ermelinda C. Manaloto without showing authority from petitioners, and (2) a Petition for Annulment of Judgment is not the proper remedy for a judgment rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; the proper remedy is a Petition for Review under Rule 42. Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, submitting Special Powers of Attorney, but these were denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Petition for Annulment of Judgment.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. A Petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 is only available when ordinary remedies like appeal are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Here, the loss of the remedies of appeal and certiorari was attributable to petitioners’ own negligence, as they failed to avail of these remedies despite opportunities. Furthermore, even assuming the remedy was proper, the ground raised—lack of jurisdiction of the RTC for awarding an amount exceeding P400,000—is erroneous. The MeTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases irrespective of the amount. The RTC, in granting the monetary award, was merely exercising its appellate jurisdiction over the MeTC decision, which it is empowered to do by law (B.P. Blg. 129). Any error in the RTC judgment should have been raised in a timely Petition for Review to the CA. The petition was denied.