Case Summary (A.C. No. 9197)
Procedural History in Trial Court
On August 27, 2009, respondents filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money plus Damages against petitioner and co‐defendant Emerflor B. Manginsay, Jr. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-09-65496). Summons by publication was effected in a local paper in March and April 2010. Neither defendant answered, prompting the RTC on March 20, 2014 to declare them in default, hear evidence ex parte, and award actual and moral damages to respondents.
Petition for Relief from Judgment
On May 22, 2014, petitioner filed a Rule 38 petition for relief from judgment, alleging extrinsic fraud through respondents’ deliberate submission of an incorrect address, thereby preventing valid service of summons and depriving the RTC of personal jurisdiction. He also cited respondents’ misverification and alleged forum‐shopping. The RTC denied relief on July 21, 2016, and again on reconsideration (April 12, 2017), then ordered issuance of a writ of execution.
Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals
On July 17, 2017, petitioner sought review under Rule 45 via petition for certiorari with application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition in resolutions dated July 25 and September 26, 2017, on grounds that: (1) petitioner failed to explain non-availment of appeal instead of petition for relief; (2) defective attachments (no certified true copy of the July 21, 2016 RTC decision; illegible photocopy of March 20, 2014 decision; missing relevant pleadings); and (3) non-compliance with Rule 46, Section 3 and Rule 65, Section 1 documentary requirements.
Applicable Law and Standards
1987 Philippine Constitution governs. Service of summons is essential to confer jurisdiction. Rule 38 provides equitable relief from judgment upon extrinsic fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, subject to strict filing periods. Rules 46 and 65 prescribe documentary attachments for certiorari petitions. Administrative Circular No. 3-96 defines “duplicate original copy” and “certified true copy.” Precedents emphasize substantial compliance over rigid technicality and recognize that void judgments for lack of jurisdiction may be assailed anytime.
Substantial Compliance with Certiorari Formalities
The Supreme Court held that petitioner’s subsequent submission of certified true copies via motion for reconsideration constituted substantial compliance. The initial notation “ORIGINAL SIGNED” did not strictly satisfy Rule 46/65 but was cured by later attachments. The photocopy of the March 20, 2014 decision sufficed for portions not directly challenged. Missing pleadings (opposition, reply, writ of execution) were later furnished and were summarized in the RTC order. The CA’s dismissal for purely technical defects unduly prioritized procedural form over substantive justice.
Extrinsic Fraud and Lack of Jurisdiction
Though Rule 38 ordinarily requires invocation only when no other adequate remedy exists, the Court distinguished cases where extrinsic fraud renders the court devoid of jurisdiction over the person. Valid service of summons is a jurisdictional prerequisite; an absence thereof makes every resulting order void
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 9197)
Antecedents
- On August 27, 2009, respondents filed Civil Case No. Q-09-65496 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 97, Quezon City, for Collection of Sum of Money plus Damages against petitioner Kenneth C. Duremdes and one Emerflor B. Manginsay, Jr.
- Respondents alleged they were victims of illegal recruitment by Vitamins & Cebu Artists International, Inc. (VCAII), of which petitioner and Manginsay were majority stockholders.
- They sought recovery of payments they allegedly made to VCAII as compensation for recruitment-related losses.
RTC Proceedings and Default Judgment
- Summons were published in Viewliner Weekly News during March 29–April 18, 2010, after respondents designated an address for service.
- Petitioner and Manginsay failed to file any answer or responsive pleading; the RTC declared them in default upon respondents’ motion.
- Respondents presented evidence ex parte; on March 20, 2014, the RTC rendered judgment awarding actual and moral damages in favor of respondents.
Petition for Relief from Judgment
- On May 22, 2014, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, accompanied by an Affidavit of Merit.
- He invoked extrinsic fraud, alleging respondents had specified a false address to frustrate valid service of summons and thus deprived the RTC of personal jurisdiction.
- Petitioner argued respondents could have obtained his correct address from VCAII’s General Information Sheet.
- Additional fraud allegations included:
- Violation of Section 1(a), Rule 111: respondents filed a civil action despite prior criminal actions involving the same facts.
- Misrepresentation in their Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, concealing prior criminal filings that also imposed civil liability.
Ruling of the RTC on Petition for Relief
- On July 21, 2016, the RTC denied the petition for relief for lack of merit, and ordered issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the March 20, 2014 judgment.
- Petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC in its April 12, 2017 Order.
Petition for Certiorari Before the Court of Appeals
- On July 17, 2017, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Certiorari with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction und