Facts:
On August 27, 2009,
Caroline G. Jorilla, Rodolfo C. De Leon, Manolito Sioson, Elmer B. Gasang, Michael De Castro, Gennete E. Rivera, Sylvia Orbase, Irene Magsombol, Nenita R. Domaguing, and Cherilyn Palma filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money plus Damages against
Kenneth C. Duremdes and Emerflor B. Manginsay, Jr. in Civil Case No. Q-09-65496, alleging that they paid monies to Vitamins & Cebu Artists International, Inc. as victims of illegal recruitment and that petitioner and Manginsay were majority stockholders of VCAII. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 97, Quezon City, found that summons had been served upon petitioner and Manginsay by publication in Viewliner Weekly News, declared them in default after they failed to file answers, allowed respondents to present evidence ex parte, and rendered judgment awarding actual and moral damages on March 20, 2014. Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment dated May 22, 2014 alleging extrinsic fraud by respondents in providing an erroneous address to defeat service of summons and other procedural irregularities, and he attached an Affidavit of Merit; respondents filed an Answer and petitioner a Reply. The RTC denied the Petition for Relief in a Decision dated July 21, 2016 and denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated April 12, 2017, after which the trial court ordered issuance of a writ of execution. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on July 17, 2017; the CA dismissed it in a Resolution dated July 25, 2017 for several alleged procedural defects and denied reconsideration on September 26, 2017. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, which rendered its Decision on February 26, 2020.
Issues:
Did the Court of Appeals properly dismiss petitioner’s petition for certiorari for alleged noncompliance with the documentary requirements of Section 3, Rule 46 and Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court? Was petitioner precluded from invoking a petition for relief from judgment because he failed to timely appeal the RTC’s March 20, 2014 decision? Should the case be remanded to the Court of Appeals for determination of the merits of the petition for certiorari?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: