Case Digest (G.R. No. 142464)
Facts:
Guillermo Dela Cruz v. Hon. Deodoro J. Sison and Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (Metrobank), G.R. No. 142464, September 26, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court; Puno (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Chico‑Nazario, JJ., concurring.On March 19, 1998, petitioner Guillermo Dela Cruz filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 40, Civil Case No. 98‑02227‑D, a Complaint for Accounting, Sum of Money and Damages against respondent Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (Metrobank) seeking return of P730,000 deposited under Certificates of Time Deposit Nos. 4900683 and 490891, plus various damages and costs. Petitioner alleged the original certificates were declared lost, replaced by Nos. 7532 and 7531, and the proceeds were withdrawn by way of Cashier’s Check No. 7448 on August 11, 1986 without his knowledge or consent.
Summons was served on Metrobank on April 2, 1998. After a motion for extension and other preliminary steps, Metrobank filed its Answer on April 28, 1998, which the plaintiff later moved to declare filed out of time. The RTC granted the motion and entered an order of default on June 10, 1998, permitting petitioner to present his case ex parte; the trial court denied Metrobank’s motion for reconsideration on October 28, 1998. On November 5, 1998, the RTC rendered judgment for petitioner ordering Metrobank to pay P730,000 with interest and awarding substantial moral, exemplary and other damages.
Metrobank did not appeal but filed a motion for inhibition (November 26, 1998) and a petition for relief from judgment (December 7, 1998). Petitioner moved for execution, which the RTC ordered on December 11, 1998. Metrobank moved to quash the writ of execution and sought injunctive relief; the RTC denied inhibition and the motion to quash in late December 1998 and denied a motion to cancel notice of levy in January (record). Metrobank then filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging extrinsic fraud and denial of due process by reason of its prior counsel’s negligence, and sought injunctive relief. The CA issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the RTC decision and writ of execution, and after full briefing granted Metrobank’s petition: it annulled and set aside the RTC decision and ordered the trial court to admit Metrobank’s Answer and try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted (CA Decision, October 28, 1999). Metrobank’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied (Resolution, March 17, 2000).
Petitioner filed a pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the negligence of a party’s counsel, standing alone, constitute extrinsic fraud sufficient to annul a final and executory judgment?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly annul the RTC judgment and order the admission of Metrobank’s late Answer an...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)