G.R. No. 180572 ; June 18, 2012
SPOUSES ATTY. ERLANDO A. ABRENICA and JOENA B. ABRENICA, Petitioners, vs. LAW FIRM OF ABRENICA, TUNGOL and TIBAYAN, ATTYS. ABELARDO M. TIBAYAN and DANILO N. TUNGOL, Respondents.

FACTS

This case stems from a prior intra-corporate dispute between former law partners. In a Consolidated Decision dated November 23, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered petitioner Atty. Erlando Abrenica to account for and remit certain partnership funds and retainer fees to the law firm. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal under Rule 41. This was contested by respondents, who argued that under A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC, the proper mode of appeal for such intra-corporate cases was a petition for review under Rule 43. The RTC required petitioner to show cause why it should take cognizance of the notice of appeal. Instead of complying, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Admit a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was denied. This denial was affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 169420 , which ruled that petitioner pursued the wrong mode of appeal, causing the RTC decision to become final and executory.
Subsequently, after G.R. No. 169420 became final, petitioners (Atty. Abrenica and his spouse) filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the CA, assailing the merits of the same RTC Decision. They argued that the RTC erred in its factual findings regarding the evidence presented. The CA dismissed the petition. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Annulment of Judgment.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary remedy, not a substitute for a lost appeal. It is available only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Extrinsic fraud refers to deceitful conduct outside the trial, like preventing a party from presenting their case. Lack of jurisdiction means the court had no authority over the subject matter or the parties.
In this case, petitioners did not allege any extrinsic fraud. Their petition before the CA assailed the RTC’s evaluation of evidence and factual conclusions—matters pertaining to errors of judgment, not jurisdiction. The RTC unquestionably had jurisdiction over the intra-corporate controversy, as jurisdiction was transferred to it from the SEC by law. Since petitioners failed to establish any ground for annulment under Rule 47, their petition was properly dismissed. The Supreme Court emphasized that a petition for annulment cannot be used to revive a judgment that has already attained finality due to a party’s own procedural misstep in pursuing an incorrect appeal, as was definitively settled in the prior case of G.R. No. 169420 . The denial of the petition for annulment stands.