Case Digest (G.R. No. 148211)
Facts:
Sincere Z. Villanueva v. Marlyn P. Nite, G.R. No. 148211, July 25, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Sincere Z. Villanueva (creditor) alleges that respondent Marlyn P. Nite (drawer/debtor) issued an Asian Bank Corporation (ABC) check (No. AYA 020195) for P325,500 dated February 8, 1994, later altered to June 8, 1994 with petitioner’s concurrence, to secure a loan of P409,000. The check was dishonored for material alteration when deposited on its due date. On August 18/24, 1994 (records vary), respondent, through a representative, remitted P235,000 as partial payment and agreed that the P174,000 balance was due on or before December 8, 1994.
Six days after receiving the partial payment, petitioner filed Civil Case No. Q-94-21495 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 101, Quezon City, suing ABC for the full amount of the dishonored check but without impleading respondent. On May 23, 1997, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner ordering ABC to pay the check’s value. When respondent attempted to withdraw funds on June 30, 1997, she found ABC restrained by the RTC order; on August 25, 1997 ABC turned over a manager’s check for P325,500 to the sheriff, which petitioner received.
Respondent then filed an annulment petition in the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 44971 seeking to annul and set aside the RTC decision for extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction over her person. The Ninth Division of the CA, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos, granted the petition, annulled the RTC decision for extrinsic fraud, and awarded respondent actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioner sought re...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May respondent, who was not a party to the RTC action, avail herself of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly annul the RTC judgment on the ground of extrinsic fraud?
- Was the RTC judgment void for lack of jurisdiction over the person because petitioner sued ABC (the drawee bank) instead of res...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)