G.R. No. L-23849 September 30, 1969
VIRGILIO M. LAYNO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. I & I EQUIPMENT & SERVICE COMPANY, JUDGE JESUS DE VEYRA OF BRANCH XIV OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA and SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On November 8, 1960, defendant I & I Equipment & Service Company filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 44649) against plaintiff Virgilio M. Layno in Branch XIV of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The parties entered into a compromise agreement on November 29, 1960, and the court rendered a judgment approving it on December 1, 1960. On April 15, 1961, I & I Equipment filed a motion for execution, claiming Layno had only paid P10,000.00 of the P32,650.00 judgment, leaving a balance of P22,625.00. The motion was granted and a writ of execution issued. On August 17, 1961, Layno filed a petition for relief from judgment in Branch XIV, seeking to annul the decision on grounds of error, mistake, and fraud by I & I Equipment regarding the total obligation for tractor rentals. Branch XIV denied the petition on August 18, 1961, finding the period under Rule 38 had lapsed, the alleged fraud was intrinsic, and the petition was insufficient in form and substance. Layno then filed a petition for certiorari with injunction in the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed on January 31, 1962, holding that Branch XIV had not acted with grave abuse of discretion. Subsequently, a motion for an alias writ of execution and a contempt charge against Layno were pending in Branch XIV. On November 15, 1962, Layno filed the present complaint (Civil Case No. 52213) in another branch of the same court, seeking annulment of the decision in Civil Case No. 44649 on grounds of fraud and praying for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Branch XIV from proceeding with execution and contempt proceedings. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that it stated no cause of action and was barred by prior judgment. The lower court granted the motion, ruling it was without jurisdiction to interfere with the judgments of a coordinate court, citing the rule against one branch enjoining another.

ISSUE

Whether the complaint in Civil Case No. 52213 should be dismissed because the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment.

RULING

Yes, the order of dismissal is affirmed. The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to definitively resolve the jurisdictional issue of whether one branch of the Court of First Instance can annul the judgment of another coordinate branch. Instead, the dismissal was sustained on the ground that the appellant’s cause of action is barred by prior judgment. The fraud alleged in the complaint—that I & I Equipment concealed records of payments when entering into the compromise agreement—is the same extrinsic fraud alleged in the earlier petition for relief from judgment. This issue was already settled by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 29845-R, which held that the alleged fraud was intrinsic, not extrinsic, and that there was no fraud or mistake in the execution of the compromise agreement. A judgment can only be annulled by a separate action after finality for extrinsic fraud, not for intrinsic fraud such as alleged perjury or withholding of information, which could have been raised during the original proceedings. The ruling of the Court of Appeals on the nature of the fraud is final and may no longer be reopened. Therefore, the order of dismissal is affirmed.