Carreon vs. Aguillon and Lopez

A motion for reconsideration filed against a reconsidered resolution that resolves the case on the merits for the first time constitutes a first motion for reconsideration, not a prohibited second motion, where the original resolution dismissed the petition purely on procedural grounds; consequently, the prohibition under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court does not apply.

Mario Aguillon filed a complaint for breach of contract against Edgar Carreon and his wife Isabel before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City. Following a default declaration and subsequent judgment in Aguillon's favor, the defendants' property was levied upon and sold at public auction to Betty Lopez. Lopez thereafter secured cancellation of the defendants' Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and obtained a writ of possession, all without actual notice to the defendants who only discovered the proceedings when faced with eviction years later.

• The Underlying Civil Action: Respondent Mario Aguillon instituted a complaint for breach of contract, damages, and attorney's fees against petitioner Edgar Carreon and his wife Isabel before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 15, docketed as Civil Case No. 33,044-09. In an Order dated March 10, 2010, the RTC declared the defendants in default for failure to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period despite receipt of summons and a copy of the complaint purportedly through their "son" at their residence.
• The Default Judgment and Execution: The RTC rendered a Decision dated October 15, 2010 in favor of Aguillon, ordering the defendants to pay P47,410.00 as actual damages plus interests and attorney's fees. The decision attained finality, and a writ of execution was issued on April 12, 2011. The Sheriff levied upon property belonging to the defendants, purportedly their family home, which was subsequently sold at public auction to respondent Betty P. Lopez.
• The Cancellation Proceedings: On December 5, 2013, Lopez filed a petition for cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-208860 registered in the defendants' names and for issuance of a new title in her favor (Sp. Proc. No. 12,881-2013). On December 12, 2013, the RTC issued an Order requiring the defendants to appear at the hearing; however, the Return of Service dated January 27, 2014 did not reflect service upon them of the December 12, 2013 Order. Nonetheless, the RTC proceeded to hear the petition and on February 17, 2014, issued an Order granting the cancellation and directing the Register of Deeds to issue a new title in Lopez's name.
• Publication and Finality: Lopez filed a Motion to Publish the February 17, 2014 Order. Despite the absence of any affidavit from the Process Server or postman stating that the defendants' address could not be located, the RTC granted the motion in an Order dated May 20, 2014. Upon publication, the February 17, 2014 Order became final, TCT No. T-208860 was cancelled, and TCT No. 146-2015001758 was issued in Lopez's name. On December 11, 2015, Lopez filed a petition for writ of possession, which the RTC granted on April 17, 2016.
• Discovery and Annulment Petition: On June 22, 2017, Carreon learned of the impending ouster from their family home upon receiving a letter from the City Government of Davao with the writ of possession attached. He discovered that all proceedings had transpired without their knowledge or participation. Securing the pertinent records, Carreon filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud premised on improper or invalid service of summons.

• Characterization of the Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner argued that the March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration was not a prohibited second motion for reconsideration but a first motion directed against the February 19, 2018 Resolution, which constituted a new ruling on the merits distinct from the original July 28, 2017 Resolution that dismissed the petition on purely procedural grounds.
• Defective Service of Summons: Petitioner maintained that substituted service of summons was improperly resorted to because no earnest efforts had been exerted by the sheriff or process server to effect personal service within a reasonable period. He attested that he has no son who could have received the summons, his only child being his daughter Malaya De Luna, who executed an affidavit supporting this claim.
• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that defective service of summons negated the RTC's jurisdiction over his person, constituting a valid ground for annulment of judgment under Rule 47.

• Procedural Bar: Respondent countered that the March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration was a second motion for reconsideration prohibited under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to uphold the immutability of judgments and ensure the termination of litigation.
• Jurisdictional Acquisition: Respondent argued that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner, there being no irregularity in the service of summons upon him. Respondent invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties to support the validity of the substituted service reflected in the sheriff's return.

• Characterization of Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly treated Carreon's March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration as a second motion for reconsideration, a prohibited pleading.
• Merits of Annulment Petition: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Annulment Petition based on its finding that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants.

• Characterization of Motion for Reconsideration: The March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration was improperly characterized as a second motion for reconsideration. It should have been treated as a first motion for reconsideration because it assailed the February 19, 2018 Resolution—a reconsidered ruling premised on completely different legal grounds (the merits of the annulment petition)—rather than the original July 28, 2017 Resolution which dismissed the petition purely on procedural grounds. The prohibition in Section 2, Rule 52 applies only to motions that repeat or reiterate arguments already passed upon by the tribunal when it resolved the first motion for reconsideration; it does not apply where the tribunal issues a new ruling based on substantive grounds distinct from the original procedural dismissal.
• Merits of Annulment Petition: The dismissal of the Annulment Petition was unwarranted. Defective service of summons negates the court's jurisdiction and constitutes a ground for annulment of judgment. Substituted service other than that authorized under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules is deemed ineffective. Petitioner demonstrated prima facie merit in his claim: (a) no record shows earnest efforts to personally serve the defendants; (b) the return merely stated that summons was served to an unnamed "son" in December 2009 without specifying the address; and (c) petitioner explicitly attested he has no son, only a daughter. The presumption of regularity in official duties cannot arise where the official act is irregular on its face. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals is required under Sections 5 and 6, Rule 47 to give due course to the petition, cause service of summons, and conduct trial to determine the merits.

• Second Motion for Reconsideration — Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court prohibits second motions for reconsideration by the same party to prevent the obviation of the immutability of judgments and ensure the termination of litigation. However, where a tribunal's reconsidered resolution addresses the merits of a case for the first time, a subsequent motion directed against that resolution constitutes a first motion for reconsideration, not a prohibited second motion.
• Defective Service of Summons as Ground for Annulment — Defective service of summons negates the court's jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and is recognized as a ground for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
• Requisites for Valid Substituted Service — Substituted service under Section 7, Rule 14 requires: (a) justifiable causes preventing personal service within a reasonable time; and (b) leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence with a person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or at the defendant's office with a competent person in charge. Any substituted service other than that authorized under Section 7 is deemed ineffective and contrary to law.
• Presumption of Regularity — The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot arise where the official act is irregular on its face.

• "The rule rests on the basic tenet of immutability of judgments [which evokes that] [a]t some point, a decision [must] becom[e] final and executory and, consequently, all litigations must come to an end." — Explaining the rationale behind the prohibition of second motions for reconsideration under Section 2, Rule 52.
• "Carreon's March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration can hardly be considered as a second motion for reconsideration as contemplated by the Rules. In fact, the aforesaid motion should have actually been treated as a first motion for reconsideration because it assailed the CA's reconsidered ruling (i.e., the Resolution dated February 19, 2018), and not its original Resolution dated July 28, 2017. As will be discussed below, these Resolutions were premised on completely different legal grounds from one another." — Articulating the distinction between first and second motions for reconsideration where the tribunal issues a new ruling on reconsideration.
• "To be sure, the CA cannot casually dismiss the Annulment Petition based on a blanket invocation of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, considering that as case law holds, where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise." — Limiting the application of the presumption of regularity.

• Reyes v. People, 764 Phil. 294 (2015) — Cited for the principle that the prohibition on second motions for reconsideration rests on the immutability of judgments and that such motions do not suspend the period to appeal.
• De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, 748 Phil. 706 (2014) — Cited for the rule that defective service of summons negates the court's jurisdiction and is a ground for annulment of judgment.
• Guigunito Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Torres, 533 Phil. 476 (2006) — Cited for the principle that substituted service other than that authorized under Section 7, Rule 14 is ineffective and contrary to law.

• Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court — Prohibits second motions for reconsideration by the same party.
• Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court — Governs substituted service of summons, requiring justifiable causes for failure to effect personal service and service upon a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant's residence or a competent person at the office.
• Sections 5 and 6, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court — Mandate that if prima facie merit is found in an annulment petition, the court shall give it due course, serve summons, and conduct trial following ordinary civil procedure.
• Section 9, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court — Specifies the relief available in a judgment of annulment, including orders of restitution where the questioned judgment had already been executed.

Hernando, Inting, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ.