G.R. No. L-45063 April 15, 1988
EDUARDO S. SAN JUAN, petitioner, vs. NIEVES RALLOS CUENTO, by and thru her Attorney-in-fact, NELITA GALLITO CUENTO and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo San Juan filed a collection suit against Nieves Rallos Cuento, her son, and the Rural Bank of Nagcarlan. The defendants, represented by Atty. Alberto Plantilla, failed to file an answer and did not appear at the pre-trial. The trial court declared them in default and rendered a judgment in favor of San Juan. Atty. Plantilla received notice of the decision and filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. A writ of execution was subsequently issued.
The other defendants (the Bank and the son) separately petitioned the Court of Appeals to nullify the default judgment, alleging gross negligence of counsel. The CA granted their petition, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court, but with a clarification that the nullification applied only to those petitioners and not to respondent Nieves Cuento, who did not join that appeal. Only after execution proceedings had commenced against her properties did Cuento file her own certiorari petition with the CA, similarly arguing deprivation of due process due to her counsel’s negligence. The CA granted her petition, setting aside the default judgment against her.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting certiorari to set aside a long-final default judgment against respondent Nieves Cuento on the ground of her counsel’s negligence.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted San Juan’s petition and reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of judgments and the limited scope of certiorari. The trial court’s default judgment against Cuento had become final and executory long before she filed her certiorari petition. A judgment that has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable; it is the law of the case between the parties. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and cannot be used to assail a final judgment, even on grounds of counsel’s negligence, unless the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court had jurisdiction over the case and the parties.
While courts may relieve clients from the consequences of their lawyer’s gross negligence, this equitable relief cannot be invoked to overturn a judgment that has already reached finality, especially after significant delay and partial execution. The respondent’s inaction and belated challenge, after her co-defendants had separately secured relief, constituted an impermissible attack on a final judgment. Therefore, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by disturbing a final and executory judgment through certiorari, an action it had no jurisdiction to entertain for that purpose. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s judgment and ordered the execution to proceed against respondent Cuento.