Sibal vs. Buquel

A petition for annulment of judgment is an exceptional equitable remedy available only for lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud and only when other remedies are no longer available without fault; counsel's negligence is not extrinsic fraud. Sibal's petition failed because the RTC had jurisdiction, he had other remedies, and his own counsel's alleged negligence did not constitute extrinsic fraud.

Respondents Pedro Buquel, Santiago Buquel, Jr., Rosalinda Buquel, and Francisco Buquel are the heirs of Santiago Buquel, Sr. and Faustina Buquet, from whom they inherited a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 0-725. Petitioner Camilo Sibal was an occupant of a portion of that land. The present case is a Rule 45 review of an annulment-of-judgment proceeding, a remedy governed by Rule 47 of the Rules of Court and limited to lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud.

Respondents Pedro Buquel, Santiago Buquel, Jr., Rosalinda Buquel, and Francisco Buquel inherited from their parents Santiago Buquel, Sr. and Faustina Buquet a parcel of land consisting of 81,022 sq. m. covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 0-725. Sometime in January 1999, petitioner Camilo Sibal and Tobi Mangoba took possession of a portion of the property which belonged to Santiago, Sr. Thereafter, the Buquels made several demands against Sibal and Mangoba for them to vacate and turn over the property, but the latter refused to do so. Hence, they filed a complaint before the Tuguegarao RTC for recovery of possession and damages.

On January 5, 2007, the Tuguegarao RTC ruled in favor of the Buquels. The decretal portion ordered the restoration to the plaintiffs of their peaceful possession of the land in question, specifically on the share of Santiago Buquel, Jr.; payment by the defendants of ₱10,000.00 as attorney's fees; and payment of ₱15,000.00 as moral and actual damages. The RTC Decision thereafter became final and executory, and the trial court issued a writ of execution.

On August 8, 2008, Sibal filed a Petition for Annulment of the RTC Decision before the CA, raising lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud as grounds. He contended that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction because the complaint alleged only that the value of the subject property was ₱51,190.00 without categorically mentioning its assessed value, and because only the real property tax order of payment, not the tax declaration, was attached to the complaint. The record included Real Property Tax Order of Payment No. 091-05713-03 dated November 24, 2002, or Exhibit C, which showed that ₱51,190.00 was the assessed value of the property.

Sibal also claimed that the Buquels were guilty of extrinsic fraud and that the negligence of his former counsel in handling his defense in Civil Case No. 6429 resulted in violation of his right to due process. He admitted that he attended only one stage of the proceedings below, the preliminary conference, and was not aware of subsequent proceedings because he was totally dependent on his former counsel and would merely wait for the latter to notify him if his attendance would be required.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction because the complaint alleged only that the property's value was ₱51,190.00 without categorically mentioning its assessed value, and attached only the real property tax order of payment, not the tax declaration.
• Extrinsic Fraud: Petitioner maintained that the Buquels were guilty of extrinsic fraud.
• Due Process — Negligence of Counsel: Petitioner asserted that his former counsel's negligence in handling his defense in Civil Case No. 6429 violated his right to due process and denied him his day in court; he attended only the preliminary conference, was unaware of subsequent proceedings, and depended on counsel to notify him.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 6429 despite the complaint alleging the property's value as ₱51,190.00 without categorically mentioning its assessed value and attaching only a real property tax order of payment rather than the tax declaration.
• Annulment of Judgment — Availability of Other Remedies: Whether Sibal's petition for annulment of judgment could prosper when he had availed of other remedies, namely a motion to quash the writ of execution and a motion to annul judgment.
• Extrinsic Fraud: Whether the Buquels committed extrinsic fraud that would justify annulment of the RTC Decision.
• Due Process — Negligence of Counsel: Whether the alleged negligence of Sibal's former counsel in handling his defense violated his right to due process and constituted a ground for annulment.

• Jurisdiction: Yes. The RTC acquired jurisdiction; Exhibit C, Real Property Tax Order of Payment No. 091-05713-03 dated Nov. 24, 2002, shows that ₱51,190.00 was the assessed value, and Sibal failed to refute it.
• Annulment of Judgment — Availability of Other Remedies: No. Annulment of judgment is an exceptional equitable remedy available only for lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud and only when other remedies are wanting; Sibal had other remedies, including a motion to quash the writ of execution and a motion to annul judgment.
• Extrinsic Fraud: No. Extrinsic fraud must be an act of the adverse party committed outside the trial that prevented the petitioner from fully presenting his case; no such fraud was shown.
• Due Process — Negligence of Counsel: No. The negligence of Sibal's own counsel is not extrinsic fraud and does not justify annulment; his remedy is against his lawyer, and he failed to keep himself abreast of the proceedings.

• Jurisdiction: Sibal argued that the RTC never acquired jurisdiction because the complaint alleged only that the property's value was ₱51,190.00 without categorically mentioning its assessed value, and because only the real property tax order of payment, not the tax declaration, was attached. The SC reviewed the records and found that Real Property Tax Order of Payment No. 091-05713-03 dated November 24, 2002, or Exhibit C, shows that ₱51,190.00 is truly the assessed value of the property. Sibal failed to refute this fact. The RTC therefore acquired jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 6429.

• Annulment of Judgment — Availability of Other Remedies: A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only if the judgment, final order, or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud, and only when other remedies are wanting. Sibal was able to avail of other remedies when he filed before the RTC a motion to quash the writ of execution and a motion to annul judgment. Parties aggrieved by final judgments cannot easily and readily abuse a petition for annulment. The SC has instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud and by prescribing in Section 1 of Rule 47 that the petitioner should show that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available without fault on the part of the petitioner. A petition that ignores or disregards any of these safeguards cannot prosper.

• Extrinsic Fraud: Not every kind of fraud justifies annulment; only extrinsic fraud does. Under Cosmic Lumber Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, fraud is extrinsic when the unsuccessful party has been prevented from fully exhibiting his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat; these and similar cases show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case. As a ground for annulment, extrinsic fraud must arise from an act of the adverse party and must be of such nature as to have deprived the petitioner of his day in court. The fraud is not extrinsic if the act was committed by the petitioner's own counsel. Here, Sibal did not show extrinsic fraud by the Buquels; his claim centered on his former counsel's negligence.

• Due Process — Negligence of Counsel: Sibal asserted that his former counsel's negligence in handling his defense resulted in violation of his right to due process and denied him his day in court. The case is closely similar to Pinausukan Seafood House vs. FEBTC. In that case, the petition's own language mentioned mistake and gross negligence on the part of petitioner's own counsel; the SC ruled that such neglect, even if true, was not tantamount to extrinsic fraud because it did not emanate from any act of the prevailing party and did not occur outside the trial. What is certain, for purposes of Rule 47, is that mistake and gross negligence cannot be equated to extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud relates to a cause collateral in character—a fraudulent act of the prevailing party in litigation committed outside the trial, preventing the defeated party from fully presenting his side. Even in the presence of fraud, annulment will not lie unless the fraud is committed by the adverse party, not by one's own lawyer; the remedy is to proceed against his own lawyer and not to re-litigate the case. Sibal admitted attending only the preliminary conference and being unaware of subsequent proceedings because he depended on his former counsel. There was no indication that his counsel was in cahoots with the Buquels. Sibal must bear the consequences; as a litigant, he should not have entirely left the case in his counsel's hands, for he had the continuing duty to keep himself abreast of developments, which he could have done by keeping in regular touch with counsel.

• Annulment of Judgment — A remedy in equity so exceptional that it is available only if the judgment, final order, or final resolution was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud, and only when other remedies are wanting. Rule 47, Section 1 requires the petitioner to show that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available without fault. The SC applied this strictly: Sibal had other remedies and his petition ignored the safeguards.
• Extrinsic Fraud — Fraud that prevents the unsuccessful party from fully exhibiting his case, by fraud or deception practiced by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise, keeping the defendant ignorant of the suit, or an attorney fraudulently or without authority conniving at his defeat; these show there has never been a real contest. As a ground for annulment, it must arise from an act of the adverse party and must deprive the petitioner of his day in court. It is not extrinsic if committed by the petitioner's own counsel. The SC found no extrinsic fraud by the Buquels.
• Negligence of Counsel — Mistake and gross negligence of the petitioner's own counsel cannot be equated to extrinsic fraud under Rule 47. The remedy is against the lawyer, not a re-litigation of the case. A litigant has the continuing duty to keep himself abreast of the developments in his case and should not entirely leave the case in his counsel's hands. The SC applied this to Sibal's due process claim.

• "A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only if the judgment, final order, or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud, and only when other remedies are wanting." — This states the two grounds and the availability requirement that defeated Sibal's petition.
• "The fraud is not extrinsic if the act was committed by the petitioner's own counsel." — This distinguishes Sibal's counsel-negligence claim from the extrinsic fraud that Rule 47 requires.
• "What is certain, for purposes of application of Rule 47, is that mistake and gross negligence cannot be equated to the extrinsic fraud under Rule 47." — This is the SC's direct holding on counsel negligence.
• "As a litigant, he should not have entirely left the case in his counsel's hands, for he had the continuing duty to keep himself abreast of the developments, if only to protect his own interest in the litigation." — This explains why Sibal could not blame his former counsel for his failure to participate.

• Cosmic Lumber Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 332 Phil. 948, 961-962 (1996) — Cited for the controlling definition of extrinsic fraud; the SC used it to explain that extrinsic fraud must prevent a real contest through the adverse party's acts.
• Pinausukan Seafood House Roxas Boulevard, Inc. vs. FEBTC, now BPI, G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014, 714 SCRA 226 — Closely similar precedent; held that mistake and gross negligence of the petitioner's own counsel are not extrinsic fraud under Rule 47.

• Rule 47, Section 1, Rules of Court — Requires the petitioner for annulment of judgment to show that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available without fault; applied to bar Sibal because he had other remedies and did not satisfy the safeguards.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The procedural vehicle for Sibal's Petition for Review of the CA Decision and Resolution; the SC denied the petition and affirmed the CA.