G.R. No. L-9689; January 27, 1958
JESUS T. QUIAMBAO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PEDRO R. PERALTA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

1. Pedro R. Peralta previously sued Jesus T. Quiambao (Civil Case No. 1783, CFI Rizal) to recover a sum of money and damages. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Peralta, ordering Quiambao to pay P12,000 with interest, P5,000 as moral and exemplary damages, P1,000 as attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment.
2. The Court of Appeals also ordered the transmittal of the case record to the Supreme Court for possible disciplinary action against Attorney Jesus T. Quiambao for acts unbecoming a member of the bar.
3. Subsequently, Jesus T. Quiambao filed a new action against Pedro R. Peralta (Civil Case No. 2917) seeking to annul the judgment in Civil Case No. 1783 and the affirming decision of the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 11104 -R). Quiambao alleged that Peralta committed fraud by concealing material facts. He also sought to suspend the execution of the prior judgment or to recover the amounts awarded therein, plus additional damages and attorney’s fees.
4. Peralta moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that: (a) the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment; (b) the complaint states no cause of action; (c) the plaintiff is in estoppel; and (d) the action is not the proper remedy.
5. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, also dissolving a previously issued writ of attachment. Quiambao appealed this order of dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. 2917, which sought to annul a final and executory judgment from a prior case on the ground of alleged fraud.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s order dismissing the complaint.
1. The appellant’s contention that the motion to dismiss admitted the allegation of the judgment’s nullity is erroneous. A motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata (bar by prior judgment) admits only the material allegations of the complaint. An allegation that a judgment is null and void is a conclusion of law, not a material allegation, and is not deemed admitted.
2. The grounds invoked by Quiambao to annul the prior judgment (fraud, concealment of facts) constitute a direct attack on that judgment. Such an attack is proper only through appeal or other direct proceedings, not through a collateral attack by filing a separate action for annulment. The proper remedy against the final judgment had already been exhausted, as Quiambao’s prior petition for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision was denied by the Supreme Court for lack of merit (G.R. No. L-7986).
3. A review of the judgments in the prior case reveals that the facts now alleged by Quiambao as constituting fraud were already considered and passed upon by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The mere fact that his claims were not given credence does not establish that fraud was committed by the appellee.
4. The action for annulment of judgment was therefore an improper remedy, and the cause of action was indeed barred by the final judgment in the prior case (res judicata).
Disposition: The appealed order is affirmed, with treble costs against the appellant.