REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region IV-B,
- versus -
SPOUSES FLORENCIO DE CASTRO and ROMELIA CALIBOSO DE CASTRO,
G.R. No. 189724
CARPIO MORALES, J.,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
February 7, 2011
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
x x x.
Respondents maintain that they did not receive a copy of the trial court’s decision of October 9, 2002, and that they came to know of it only on September 29, 2005 when the trial court’s sheriff personally served upon them a copy of the writ of execution of the decision.
Section 1, Rule 47 of the 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the remedy of annulment of judgments or final orders/resolutions of a Regional Trial Court in civil actions can only be availed of where “the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.”
A petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances where a party, without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies provided by law. Such action is never resorted to as a substitute for a party’s own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies.
Upon notice of the writ of execution on, by respondents’ own information, September 29, 2005, respondents – if indeed they were completely unaware of the trial court’s decision – had available remedies to question it. They could have promptly filed a motion to quash the writ of execution or, in the alternative, a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the 1987 Rules of Civil Procedure. That they had ample opportunity to do so is gathered from the fact that the writ of execution of the decision was not immediately implemented by the sheriff as it was satisfied only on July 20, 2006. Having failed to avail of any of the aforesaid remedies without any justification, respondents are barred from resorting to the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47; otherwise, they would benefit from their own inaction or negligence. So Lazaro v. Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan), Inc. teaches:
Let it be stressed at the outset that before a party can avail of the reliefs provided for by Rule 47, i.e., annulment of judgments, final orders, and resolutions, it is a condition sine qua non that one must have failed to move for new trial in, or appeal from, or file a petition for
relief against said issuances or take other appropriate remedies thereon, through no fault attributable to him. If he failed to avail of those cited remedies without sufficient justification, he cannot resort to the action for annulment provided in Rule 47, for otherwise he would benefit from his own inaction or negligence (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 140615, Feb. 19, 2001, 352 SCRA 235, 250).
In the instant case, not only did petitioner fail to avail of the ordinary and appropriate remedies in assailing the questioned judgments of the trial court, but he also failed to show to the satisfaction of this Court that he could not have availed of the ordinary and appropriate remedies under the Rules. According to petitioner, he allegedly learned of the cases filed against him by respondent bank only when the writs of execution were issued against him. At the very least then, he could have moved to quash the writs of execution. In the alternative, he could have filed a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38. Instead, petitioner merely alleged that he approached Atty. Gregorio Salazar, the bank’s counsel, for clarification and assistance, which is not one of the ordinary and appropriate remedies contemplated by the Rules. Petitioner’s failure to explain why he failed to avail of said remedies, which were still available to him at that time, in both Civil Case No. 7355-M and Civil Case No. 2856-V-88, is fatal to his cause. To be sure, a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is not a substitute for one’s own neglect in not availing of the ordinary and appropriate remedies, but a peculiar remedy granted under certain conditions to those who failed to avail of the ordinary remedies without their fault. Thus, in our considered view, based on the cited reasons and circumstances, the Court of Appeals did not err when it denied the petition for annulment of judgment. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)