Note:
This repeats the old doctrines about petitions for relief from judgment under Rule 38. There is nothing new in its ratio decidendi. But it is useful to refresh our memories on the requisites of such a petition.
AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT G.R. No. 183906
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Petitioner, Present:
CARPIO,
- versus - NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
MARIKINA CITY, BRANCH 193 Promulgated:
and SOLID HOMES, INC.,
Respondents. February 14, 2011
x --------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
ABAD, J.:
This is about a trial court order that gave due course to a petition for relief from judgment that would litigate anew issues between the same parties that had already been once decided with finality.
x x x.
Rulings of the Court
x x x
Two. AFPMBAI points out that Solid Homes filed its petition for relief from judgment with the RTC beyond the period allowed by the rules.[20] The Court agrees. Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a petition for relief from judgment must be filed within 60 days from notice of such judgment or within six months from the entry of judgment. The RTC issued its order denying Solid Homes’ original motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing its action on April 21, 2004.[21] This means that the RTC’s order of dismissal had long become final and executory when Solid Homes filed its petition for relief nearly 10 months later on February 14, 2005.[22] The period cannot be counted from the RTC’s order denying its second motion for reconsideration since such motion was a prohibited pleading.
Three. AFPMBAI alleges that Solid Homes’ affidavit of merit was fatally defective. But the Court cannot make a determination regarding this point since, although AFPMBAI attached Solid Homes’ petition for relief as Annex “N”,[23] it did not include a copy of Solid Homes’ affidavit of merit.
Four. The RTC gave due course to Solid Homes’ petition for relief from judgment based on AFPMBAI and Investco’s alleged commission of extrinsic fraud in the proceedings that led to the judgment that the Court rendered against Solid Homes in G.R. 104769 and G.R. 135016.[24]
But the extrinsic fraud that will justify a petition for relief from judgment is that fraud which the prevailing party caused to prevent the losing party from being heard on his action or defense. Such fraud concerns not the judgment itself but the manner in which it was obtained.[25] For example, the petition of a defending party would be justified where the plaintiff deliberately caused with the process server’s connivance the service of summons on defendant at the wrong address and thus succeeded in getting a judgment by default against him.
Here, the fraud that Solid Homes proposed as ground for its petition for relief is Investco and AFPMBAI’s alleged prior knowledge of the sale of the disputed lands to Solid Homes, which fraud goes into the merit of the case rather than on Solid Homes’ right to be heard on its action. In effect the RTC will rehear the issue of whether or not AFPMBAI was a buyer in good faith, an issue barred by res judicata since the Court has already decided the same with finality in the latter’s favor on March 3, 2000 in G.R. 104769 and G.R. 135016, AFPMBAI v. CA. The principle of res judicata holds that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot be raised in any future case between the same parties.[26]
With the Court’s above rulings, Solid Homes is not entitled to notices of lis pendens in connection with Civil Case 2003-901-MK.
x x x.
