Duremdes vs. Jorilla

A petition for relief grounded on extrinsic fraud that ultimately negates the court's jurisdiction over the defendant may be filed anytime as long as the action is not barred by laches or estoppel, and technical defects in attachments to a petition for certiorari may be excused upon subsequent substantial compliance.

Kenneth Duremdes (petitioner) and Emerflor B. Manginsay, Jr. were alleged majority stockholders of Vitamins & Cebu Artists International, Inc. (VCAII). Respondents filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money plus Damages against them, alleging they were victims of illegal recruitment by VCAII. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-09-65496 before the RTC of Quezon City.

On August 27, 2009, respondents filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money plus Damages against petitioner Kenneth Duremdes and Emerflor B. Manginsay, Jr. before the RTC of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-09-65496. Respondents sought to recover payments they allegedly made to VCAII as victims of illegal recruitment, claiming that petitioner and Manginsay were its majority stockholders.

Summons was served upon petitioner and Manginsay by publication in the March 29 to April 18, 2010 issues of Viewliner Weekly News. Neither filed an answer or responsive pleading, leading the RTC, upon respondents' motion, to declare them in default and allow respondents to present evidence ex parte. On March 20, 2014, the RTC rendered a Decision awarding respondents actual and moral damages.

Petitioner learned of the Decision on April 25, 2014, and on May 28, 2014, filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with an Affidavit of Merit. Petitioner argued that respondents committed extrinsic fraud by knowingly specifying an erroneous address to fraudulently gain a favorable judgment, asserting that respondents could have referred to VCAII's General Information Sheet for his valid address. Consequently, he was not properly served with summons, depriving the RTC of jurisdiction over his person. He also alleged fraud in respondents' filing of the civil case despite the previous dismissal of criminal cases against him and their false Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping.

The RTC denied the Petition for Relief on July 21, 2016, for lack of merit, and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on April 12, 2017. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it on July 25, 2017, citing petitioner's failure to explain why he did not appeal, the lack of certified true copies of the assailed decisions, and the non-attachment of pertinent pleadings. The CA denied his Motion for Reconsideration on September 26, 2017, prompting the present petition.

• Extrinsic Fraud: Petitioner argued that the RTC Decision should be set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, as respondents knowingly specified an erroneous address to fraudulently gain a favorable judgment, resulting in invalid service of summons and lack of jurisdiction over his person.
• Forum Shopping: Petitioner maintained that respondents committed fraud by filing the civil case despite the previous filing and dismissal of criminal cases against him, and by falsely stating in their Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping that they had not filed any similar case.
• Substantial Compliance: Petitioner argued that his subsequent submission of the missing documents with his Motion for Reconsideration before the CA amounted to substantial compliance with the formal requirements of a petition for certiorari.

• Failure to Implead CA: Respondents argued that the present petition should be dismissed for failure to implead the CA as a public respondent.
• Procedural Defects: Respondents countered that the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari due to petitioner's failure to explain the non-availment of the remedy of appeal, and for failing to attach certified true copies of the assailed decisions and other pertinent pleadings.

• Substantial Compliance: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari based on technicalities despite petitioner's subsequent submission of the required documents.
• Propriety of Petition for Relief: Whether a petition for relief from judgment may be availed of despite the petitioner's failure to appeal, when the petition is grounded on extrinsic fraud that allegedly resulted in lack of jurisdiction over the person.

• Substantial Compliance: Yes. The CA erred in dismissing the petition based on mere technicalities, as petitioner's subsequent submission of the missing documents with his Motion for Reconsideration constituted substantial compliance with Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
• Propriety of Petition for Relief: Yes. A petition for relief grounded on extrinsic fraud that ultimately negates the court's jurisdiction over the defendant may be filed anytime, provided it is not barred by laches or estoppel, rendering the failure to appeal non-fatal.

• Substantial Compliance: While rules of procedure are essential, they must be applied to secure, not defeat, justice. The Court has relaxed procedural rules when appellants substantially comply with formal requirements. Under Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 1, Rule 65, a petition for certiorari must be accompanied by a certified true copy of the assailed judgment and relevant pleadings. Here, petitioner initially attached copies with the notation "ORIGINAL SIGNED" instead of certified true copies. However, he submitted certified true copies with his Motion for Reconsideration before the CA. Further, the omission of certain pleadings was justified because their contents were summarized in the RTC Order, and a writ of execution had not yet been issued at the time of filing. Thus, the CA should have considered these submissions as substantial compliance.
• Propriety of Petition for Relief: A petition for relief is an equitable remedy available when no other adequate remedy exists and the party was prevented by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence from availing of such remedy. Generally, failure to appeal is fatal. However, an exception exists when the petition for relief is grounded on extrinsic fraud that results in the court's lack of jurisdiction over the defendant. Jurisdiction over a defendant in an action in personam is acquired through valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. If summons is invalidly served, the court lacks jurisdiction, rendering any judgment void. A void judgment never becomes final and may be assailed anytime. Because petitioner's allegations of extrinsic fraud—providing an erroneous address to defeat valid service of summons—directly challenge the RTC's jurisdiction, the propriety and timeliness of his petition for relief are intertwined with the merits of his case, which involve questions of fact and law.

• Substantial Compliance with Procedural Rules — Procedural rules are to be applied in a manner that secures, not defeats, justice. Subsequent submission of missing documents with a motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance, justifying the relaxation of procedural rules rather than dismissal on technicalities.
• Extrinsic Fraud and Lack of Jurisdiction in Petitions for Relief — A petition for relief grounded on extrinsic fraud that ultimately negates the court's jurisdiction over the defendant may be filed anytime as long as the action is not barred by laches or estoppel. This is because a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void, never becomes final, and may be assailed anytime.
• Jurisdiction over the Person in Actions In Personam — In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired either through valid service of summons or voluntary appearance. Absent valid service, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the defendant's person, rendering any judgment against them null and void.

• "In fine, the CA should not have been too rigid in applying the rules to dismiss the petition based on mere technicalities. Applying our pronouncements in Jaro v. Court of Appeals and Air Philippines Corp. v. Zamora, the CA should have considered petitioner's submissions attached to the motion for reconsideration as substantial compliance to the formal requirements under Section 1 of Rule 65." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi for reversing the CA's dismissal, emphasizing substantial compliance over rigid technicality.
• "Specifically, the above-stated rule will not apply when a petition for relief which is grounded on extrinsic fraud ultimately results in the court's lack of jurisdiction over the defendant, and which consequently makes the judgment rendered by the trial court void. In such a case, the petition for relief should not be dismissed for failure of one to avail himself of the remedy of an appeal and for untimeliness." — This establishes the exception to the rule that a petition for relief cannot substitute for a lost appeal, tying it to the void judgment doctrine.

• Jaro vs. Court of Appeals, 362 Phil. 532 (2002) — Cited to support the principle that procedural rules should be applied to secure justice and that subsequent submission of missing documents amounts to substantial compliance.
• Air Philippines Corp. vs. Zamora, 529 Phil. 718 (2006) — Cited for the guideposts on what documents are required to be attached to a petition for certiorari and when a petition lacking essential pleadings may still be given due course.
• Philippine Amanah Bank vs. Contreras, 744 Phil. 256 (2014) — Cited to explain the nature and requirements of a petition for relief from judgment as an equitable remedy.
• Sps. Laus vs. Court of Appeals, 292 Phil. 692 (1993) — Cited for the ruling that a void judgment can never become final and may be assailed anytime, which supports the exception applied to petitions for relief grounded on lack of jurisdiction.

• Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — These provisions require a petition for certiorari to be accompanied by a certified true copy of the assailed judgment and copies of relevant pleadings. The Court applied these to determine that petitioner's subsequent submission of certified true copies constituted substantial compliance.
• Section 1, Rule 38, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for relief from judgment, allowing it when a judgment is entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The Court interpreted this in conjunction with the void judgment doctrine.
• Section 3, Rule 38, Rules of Court — Sets the jurisdictional periods for filing a petition for relief (60 days from learning of the judgment and not more than 6 months from entry of judgment). The Court held this period does not strictly apply when the petition is grounded on extrinsic fraud resulting in lack of jurisdiction.
• Section 2, Rule 47, Rules of Court — Provides that annulment of judgment may be based on extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The Court used this to draw an analogy that petitions for relief grounded on lack of jurisdiction may be filed anytime before barred by laches or estoppel.

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Delos Santos, JJ., concur.