GR 174077; (November, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174077; November 21, 2012
Ellice Agro-Industrial Corporation, represented by its Chairman of the Board of Directors and President, Raul E. Gala, Petitioner, vs. Rodel T. Young, Delfin Chan, Jim Wee, and Guia G. Domingo, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ellice Agro-Industrial Corporation (EAIC) entered into a Contract to Sell a parcel of land with respondents, represented by its alleged corporate secretary, Guia G. Domingo. Respondents made partial payments but EAIC failed to deliver the title and deed of sale. Respondents filed a complaint for specific performance. Summons and the complaint were served on Domingo at her residence. EAIC, through Domingo, filed an Answer. After EAIC failed to appear at the pre-trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) allowed respondents to present evidence ex parte and subsequently rendered a decision in their favor. The decision became final and executory.
EAIC, now represented by its President Raul Gala, later filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, alleging extrinsic fraud by Domingo in concealing the contract and the lawsuit. The RTC denied this petition for being filed out of time. EAIC then filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service of summons on Domingo, who allegedly lacked authority to represent the corporation, and extrinsic fraud.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Annulment of Judgment.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed that the grounds for annulment—extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction—were unavailing. On jurisdiction, service of summons upon Domingo was valid under the then-prevailing Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. The rule allowed service on a corporation’s “agent.” Domingo, by actively representing herself as EAIC’s corporate secretary and attorney-in-fact in executing the Contract to Sell and receiving payments, acted as an agent for the corporation in that specific transaction. Service upon her was therefore effective, and the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction over EAIC.
Regarding extrinsic fraud, the petition was barred. Section 2, Rule 47 explicitly states that extrinsic fraud cannot be a ground for annulment if it was or could have been availed of in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. EAIC’s previous Petition for Relief from Judgment was based on the same alleged fraud by Domingo. The dismissal of that petition, whether on the merits or on technicality like prescription, precludes the subsequent use of the same ground in an annulment proceeding. The Court emphasized the finality of judgments and the policy against reviving issues that were or should have been raised earlier.