As a general rule, an aggrieved party in a court case may avail of remedies such as motion for reconsideration, motion for new trial or appeal before a court judgment becomes final and executory. But what if the court’s judgment has already become final and executory? Is there a remedy which a party may resort to?
Under the doctrine of immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by our Supreme Court. This principle has a two-fold purpose, namely: (a) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (b) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors.
An exception to the concept of immutability of final judgments is the remedy of Annulment of Judgments of Final Orders and Resolutions under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. This is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no available or other adequate remedy. It is considered an equitable remedy 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.
Being exceptional in nature, the Rules require the availing party to comply with very strict requirements.
Failure to avail of the ordinary and other appropriate remedies for causes not attributable to the availing party.
The first requirement is that one who desires to avail of this remedy must convince the court that the ordinary and other appropriate remedies such as new trial, appeal or petition for relief are no longer available for causes not attributable to him. If he failed in this regard, he cannot resort to this action, for otherwise he would benefit from his own inaction or negligence. A petition for annulment of judgment cannot serve as a substitute for a lost remedy.
Extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process.
Rule 47 provides for two grounds to avail of this remedy: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence, however, recognizes the denial of due process as additional ground under this rule.
An action for annulment of judgment on the ground of fraud will lie only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in character. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial, or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it was procured so that there was not a fair submission of the controversy. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court. A judgment or final order issued by the trial court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action is always void.
Prescriptive period.
The filing of the action, if based on extrinsic fraud, must be within four (4) years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, must be brought before it is barred by laches or estoppel.
Prima facie merit.
Lastly, the petition must bear a sworn verification, the particularization of the allegations of the extrinsic fraud, the submission of the certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution, and the attachment of the affidavits of witnesses and documents supporting the cause of action or defense.
The purpose of this last requirement is to forthwith bring all the relevant facts to the Court of Appeal’s cognizance in order for it to determine whether or not the petition has substantial merit. Should the court find prima facie merit in the petition, it shall give the petition due course and direct the service of summons on the respondent; otherwise, it has the discretion to outrightly dismiss the petition for annulment.
The objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order is to undo or set aside the judgment or final order, and grant to the petitioner an opportunity to prosecute his cause or to ventilate his defense. Depending on the ground relied upon, the entire proceedings may be set aside without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court, or the trial court may be ordered to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted.
Indeed, the exceptional nature of this remedy requires the availing party to be circumspect, for it is not easy to overturn judgments that have become final as it 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 foregoing article is for general informational and educational purposes only. It should not be treated and is not to be considered as legal advice or opinion. The views expressed in this article are those only of the author.
Anna Danessa H. Valdez is an Associate at Cokaliong Menchavez & Senining-Judilla Law Offices (CMS LAW), Cebu.
+63 32 342-8201
