"x x x.
Issue
The sole issue for the resolution of this Court is the propriety of Antonino’s use of the remedy of a petition for annulment of judgment as against the final and executory orders of the RTC.
Our Ruling
In Ramos v. Judge Combong, Jr.,[22] this Court expounded that the remedy of annulment of judgment is only available under certain exceptional circumstances as this is adverse to the concept of immutability of final judgments:
Annulment of judgment is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy. Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governs actions for annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions, and Section 2 thereof explicitly provides only two grounds for annulment of judgment, i.e., extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The underlying reason is traceable to the notion that annulling final judgments goes against the grain of finality of judgment. Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective administration of justice that once a judgment has become final, the issue or cause involved therein should be laid to rest. The basic rule of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite date fixed by law.[23] (Citations omitted)
In Barco v. Court of Appeals,[24] this Court emphasized that only void judgments, by reason of “extrinsic fraud” or the court’s lack of jurisdiction, are susceptible to being annulled.
The law sanctions the annulment of certain judgments which, though final, are ultimately void. Annulment of judgment is an equitable principle not because it allows a party-litigant another opportunity to reopen a judgment that has long lapsed into finality but because it enables him to be discharged from the burden of being bound to a judgment that is an absolute nullity to begin with.[25]
Apart from the requirement that the existence of “extrinsic fraud” or “lack of jurisdiction” should be amply demonstrated, one who desires to avail this remedy must convince that the ordinary and other appropriate remedies, such as an appeal, are no longer available for causes not attributable to him. This is clearly provided under Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
Antonino’s recourse to annulment of judgment is seriously flawed and the reasons are patent. There is therefore no reason to disturb the questioned issuances of the RTC that are already final and executory.
A petition for annulment of judgment cannot serve as a substitute for the lost remedy of an appeal.
First, Antonino cannot pursue the annulment of the various issuances of the RTC, primary of which is the Order dated December 8, 2004, in order to avoid the adverse consequences of their becoming final and executory because of her neglect in utilizing the ordinary remedies available. Antonino did not proffer any explanation for her failure to appeal the RTC’s Order dated December 8, 2004 and, thereafter, the Order dated January 6, 2005, denying her Motion for Reconsideration dated January 3, 2005. Knowledge of rudimentary remedial rules immediately indicates that an appeal was already available from the Order dated December 8, 2004, as this is a final order as contemplated under Sections 2, 3 and 5 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, and there was no legal compulsion for Antonino to move for reconsideration. Nonetheless, since there is no bar for her to file a motion for reconsideration so as to give the RTC opportunity to reverse itself before elevating the matter for the appellate courts’ review, appeal is the prescribed remedy from the denial of such motion and not another motion for reconsideration. While Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court includes “an order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration” in the enumeration of unappealable matters, this Court clarified inQuelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc.[26] that such refers to a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order and the denial of a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal is a final order, therefore, appealable. Moreover, a second motion for reconsideration from a final judgment or order is prohibited, hence, can never interrupt the period to perfect an appeal.
The RTC may have been overly strict in the observance of the three-day notice rule under Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court contrary to liberal stance taken by this Court in cases when the purpose of such rule can be achieved by giving the opposing party sufficient time to study and controvert the motion.[27] Justice and equity would thus suggest that the fifteen-day period within which Antonino can appeal should be counted from her receipt on January 7, 2005[28] of the Order dated January 6, 2005 denying her Motion for Reconsideration dated January 3, 2005. Unfortunately, even liberality proved to be inadequate to neutralize the adverse consequences of Antonino’s negligence as she allowed such period to lapse without filing an appeal, erroneously believing that a second motion for reconsideration is the proper remedy. While a second motion for reconsideration is not prohibited insofar as interlocutory orders are concerned,[29] the Orders dated December 8, 2004 and January 6, 2005 are final orders.
In fact, even if the period to appeal would be counted from Antonino’s receipt of the Order dated February 24, 2005 denying her second motion for reconsideration, she interposed no appeal and filed a petition for annulment of judgment on April 1, 2005 instead. This, for sure, constitutes a categorical admission that the assailed issuances of the RTC had already become final and executory in view of her omission to perfect an appeal within the mandated period. By no means can her petition for annulment of judgment prosper as that would, in effect, sanction her blatant negligence or sheer obliviousness to proper procedure.
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.[30] (Citation omitted)
x x x."
See -
