Joven vs. Calilung

A judgment procured by the prevailing party through extrinsic fraud—such as bribery of the judge—must be annulled, even if the losing party was given an opportunity to be heard, because the outcome was predetermined and there was no fair submission of the controversy.

Federico S. Calilung and Emiliano D. Joven were parties to an unlawful detainer case over leased premises in Angeles City. The case was initially heard by Judge Wilfred Suriaga of MTCC Branch II, with the appeal pending before RTC Branch 58 then presided by Judge Philbert Iturralde. The present consolidated petitions arose from subsequent proceedings before Judge Ofelia Tuazon-Pinto of RTC Branch 60 and from an administrative case against Judge Suriaga.

Federico S. Calilung filed an action for unlawful detainer against Emiliano D. Joven before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch II, Angeles City, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-116. Calilung sought to eject Joven, his agents, assigns, employees, and all persons found in the leased premises, and to recover just and reasonable compensation for the use of the premises at ₱110,000.00 per month plus 25% interest per annum with an escalation of 10% for each passing year from the filing of the complaint, attorney’s fees of ₱200,000.00, and costs.

On 04 December 1998, Judge Wilfred Suriaga rendered a decision in favor of Calilung. The court ordered Joven and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the subject premises and return them to Calilung; to pay monthly rent of ₱110,000.00 from February 1998 until he vacated, with interest at 25% per annum; and to pay ₱50,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus costs of suit. Joven appealed on 23 December 1998 to RTC Branch 58, then presided by Judge Philbert Iturralde.

On 16 April 1999, Calilung gave a sworn statement to the National Bureau of Investigation denouncing Judge Suriaga for demanding and receiving ₱300,000.00 from him in consideration of a favorable decision in Civil Case No. 98-116, which was then under appeal before RTC Branch 58. Calilung further claimed that Judge Suriaga approached him again and assured him of a favorable decision in the appeal, Civil Case No. 9314, before Judge Iturralde in consideration of ₱250,000.00. On the basis of Calilung’s sworn statement, the NBI conducted an entrapment operation on 19 April 1999 against Judges Suriaga and Iturralde, resulting in the arrest of Judge Suriaga. On 04 May 1999, the Supreme Court placed Judge Suriaga and Judge Iturralde under preventive suspension.

In view of Judge Iturralde’s preventive suspension, Judge Ofelia Tuazon-Pinto, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 60, acted as Pairing Judge of RTC Branch 58, where the appealed ejectment case, Civil Case No. 9314, was pending. Joven subsequently obtained Calilung’s sworn statement. On 10 May 1999, Joven filed a complaint for annulment of judgment before the RTC of Angeles City, seeking to annul Judge Suriaga’s decision in the ejectment case dated 04 December 1998 on the ground of extrinsic fraud, and praying that a new trial be ordered. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 9399 and raffled to Judge Pinto.

In the administrative case against the judges, the Supreme Court on 31 August 2000 found Judge Suriaga guilty of irregular activities (bribery) amounting to serious misconduct in office and dismissed him from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The Court found the testimonies of the Calilung spouses replete with important details that could not be ignored, and rejected Judge Suriaga’s mere denials. This administrative finding is the factual matter central to the annulment of the ejectment judgment.

• Extrinsic Fraud: Petitioner Joven sought annulment of the 04 December 1998 MTCC decision on the ground of extrinsic fraud, alleging that Calilung’s sworn statement showed he paid Judge Suriaga ₱300,000.00 to obtain a favorable judgment.
• Suspension of Appeal: Petitioner maintained that the appealed judgment, being a product of corruption, is void, and that there was a need to await the resolution of the Complaint for Annulment of Judgment, Civil Case No. 9399.
• Reconsideration of Dismissal: Petitioner argued that the RTC Br. 58 Decision of 26 May 1999 could not be deemed to have superseded the MTCC Decision of 04 December 1998 because its enforceability had been enjoined by the Court of Appeals and it was the subject of a Petition for Certiorari; that the action to annul the MTCC judgment based on extrinsic fraud may be filed within four years from discovery of the fraud; and that Judge Pinto should have inhibited herself.

• Jurisdiction and Mootness: Respondent Calilung pointed out that the RTC had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the annulment case because it was now within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, and that the matter had become moot and academic because the MTCC decision had been superseded by the RTC decision of 26 May 1999.
• Disqualification and Expunction: Respondent Calilung moved to disqualify Joven’s counsel, Atty. Carmelino M. Roque, on the ground of conflict of interest and to expunge all pleadings filed by said counsel; he also moved to withdraw monthly rental deposits.

• Extrinsic Fraud: Whether the 04 December 1998 MTCC decision in the ejectment case should be annulled on the ground of extrinsic fraud.
• Dismissal of Annulment Complaint: Whether the RTC Br. 60 erred in dismissing Joven’s Complaint for Annulment of Judgment as moot and academic and for lack of jurisdiction.
• Mootness of G.R. No. 148970: Whether the Petition in G.R. No. 148970 is moot in view of the declaration of nullity of the MTCC decision.

• Extrinsic Fraud: Yes. The judgment was procured by the prevailing party through extrinsic fraud because Judge Suriaga demanded and received ₱300,000.00 from Calilung, preventing a fair submission of the controversy.
• Dismissal of Annulment Complaint: Reversed and set aside. The MTCC decision was declared null and void, and trial on the merits was ordered held anew.
• Mootness of G.R. No. 148970: Yes. The petition was denied for being moot in view of the declaration of nullity of the MTCC decision.

• Extrinsic Fraud: The Court relied on its administrative finding that Judge Suriaga was guilty of bribery amounting to serious misconduct. A judgment tainted by corruption cannot stand. Annulment of judgment rests on a single ground: extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud refers to a fraudulent act of the prevailing party committed outside the trial, whereby the defeated party is prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case, or the judgment is procured without a fair submission of the controversy. Here, the receipt of money demanded by Judge Suriaga from Calilung was clearly an act used to procure judgment without a fair submission. Even if Joven had been given his day in court and had presented evidence, the controversies in the ejectment case had already been predetermined to prejudice him. Thus, extrinsic fraud was perpetrated by Calilung and Judge Suriaga, and the 04 December 1998 judgment had to be annulled.
• Dismissal of Annulment Complaint: The RTC dismissed the annulment complaint on the grounds that the MTCC decision had been superseded by the RTC decision and that the matter had become moot and academic and within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside that dismissal, declared the MTCC decision null and void, and ordered trial on the merits anew. In the face of bribery in the procurement of the subject decision, the Court would not allow a patently void decision to attain legitimacy by recognizing it as binding and conferring legal rights on the parties.
• Mootness of G.R. No. 148970: Because the MTCC decision was declared null and void, the petition in G.R. No. 148970, which challenged the Court of Appeals decision resolving orders related to the appeal and suspension of the RTC judgment, became moot. The Court denied the petition on that ground without passing on the merits of the disqualification and expunction issues.

• Extrinsic Fraud as Ground for Annulment of Judgment — Annulment of judgment rests on a single ground: extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation committed outside the trial, whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced by his opponent. It includes acts that prevent a party from having a trial or a real contest, or that operate on the manner in which the judgment was procured so that there is no fair submission of the controversy. In this case, bribery of the judge by the prevailing party was extrinsic fraud because it procured the judgment without a fair submission and predetermined the outcome against Joven.
• Bribery Vitiates Judgment — A judgment obtained through bribery is void and cannot be permitted to attain legitimacy or confer legal rights. The Court will not condone acts of impropriety that taint the integrity of the judiciary. Here, Judge Suriaga’s demand and receipt of ₱300,000.00 from Calilung for a favorable decision rendered the ejectment judgment void.
• Mootness — A petition challenging orders that depend on a judgment becomes moot when the underlying judgment is declared null and void. In G.R. No. 148970, the petition was denied as moot after the MTCC decision was annulled.

• "Annulment of judgment, we have had occasion to rule, rests on a single ground: extrinsic fraud." — States the controlling rule on annulment of judgment.
• "Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent." — Defines extrinsic fraud as distinguished from intrinsic fraud.
• "The receipt of the money demanded by Suriaga from Calilung is clearly an act used to procure judgment without a fair submission of the controversy." — Applies the doctrine of extrinsic fraud to the bribery established in the case.
• "Thus, the judgment dated 04 December 1998 must be annulled." — The Court’s conclusion on the principal issue.

• Canlas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-77691, 08 August 1988, 164 SCRA 160 — Cited for the rule that annulment of judgment rests on a single ground: extrinsic fraud.
• Macabingkil vs. People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation — Cited in Canlas for the definition of extrinsic fraud as distinguished from intrinsic fraud.
• Ybañez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117499, 09 February 1996, 253 SCRA 540 — Cited for the explanation that extrinsic fraud refers to acts outside the trial that prevent a fair submission of the controversy.
• National Bureau of Investigation vs. Judge Ramon B. Reyes — Cited in the administrative case against Judge Suriaga for the rule that bribery is a serious charge punishable by dismissal from service.
• Calilung vs. Suriaga, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1191 and A.M. No. RTJ-99-1437, 31 August 2000, 339 SCRA 340 — The administrative decision finding Judge Suriaga guilty of serious misconduct and dismissing him from service, which the Court relied on to establish extrinsic fraud.

• Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure — The consolidated cases were Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
• Rule 2.01, Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct — Cited in the administrative decision: a judge should behave at all times to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary. Judge Suriaga’s bribery violated this rule.
• Article VIII, Section 13, 1987 Constitution — Cited in the certification that the conclusions in the decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

Reynato S. Puno (Chairman), Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., and Dante O. Tinga.