Case Digest (G.R. No. 164632)
Facts:
Urethane Trading Specialist, Inc. v. Edwin Ong and Leticia Ong, G.R. No. 164632, October 29, 2008, the Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.In June 2000, petitioner Urethane Trading Specialist, Inc. filed a Complaint for sum of money against respondents Edwin Ong and Leticia Ong in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasig City (Civil Case No. 8142). The MeTC declared the respondents in default, petitioner presented evidence ex parte, and on October 30, 2001 the MeTC rendered judgment ordering respondents, jointly and severally, to pay P295,026.01 with legal interest and 25% attorney’s fees.
After the MeTC decision became final, petitioner moved for execution on January 10, 2002; no opposition having been filed, the MeTC ordered issuance of a writ of execution on March 18, 2002. On July 9, 2002, the respondents filed a petition for annulment of judgment with damages and prayer for injunctive relief in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City (Civil Case No. 69034), alleging lack of personal service of summons, a manufactured sheriff’s return, and nonreceipt of the order of default — grounds characterized as extrinsic fraud and want of jurisdiction over their persons.
Petitioner moved in the RTC to dismiss the annulment petition, asserting (1) the cause of action was barred by prescription or laches and (2) the claim had been waived, abandoned or extinguished; it also maintained that substituted service had been properly effected and that respondent Edwin had attended a hearing before the MeTC. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss in an April 4, 2003 omnibus order and denied reconsideration on August 8, 2003.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 79251. The CA dismissed that petition in a February 12, 2004 Resolution as an improper attack on an interlocutory order and denied reconsideration on July 26, 2004. Petitioner brought the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to the Supreme Court, raising primarily (1) wheth...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the petition for annulment of judgment filed by respondents should have been dismissed on the grounds that the cause of action is barred by prescription or laches, or that the claim has been waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished.
- Whether the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner should be dismissed because an order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which cannot be the s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)