G.R. No. 151170 . May 29, 2007.
VICTORY LINER, INC., Petitioner, vs. MICHAEL MALINIAS, Respondent.

FACTS

The case originated from a 1996 vehicular collision. Respondent Michael Malinias filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Victory Liner, Inc. before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). After respondent rested his case, petitioner failed to appear on the scheduled date for the presentation of its evidence. The MTC thus declared petitioner to have waived its right to present evidence and rendered judgment in favor of respondent. Petitioner, through new counsel, filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The MTC denied this motion, ruling that the notice of hearing attached to it was defective for failing to specify a date and time for hearing, in violation of Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the MTC held the motion was a mere scrap of paper that did not toll the reglementary period to appeal, rendering its judgment final and executory.
Petitioner subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal, which the MTC denied as filed out of time. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the MTC, which was also denied for being filed beyond the 60-day period prescribed by Rule 38. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the MTC’s orders. The RTC dismissed the petition, upholding the MTC’s findings. Finally, petitioner filed a “Petition for Certiorari to Annul Judgment” with the Court of Appeals under Rule 47, which was dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s Rule 47 petition for annulment of judgment.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is not a substitute for a lost appeal or other remedies. The grounds for annulment are strictly limited to extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner failed to establish either ground. The alleged procedural errors committed by the MTC, such as declaring its motion for reconsideration as a mere scrap of paper and denying its appeal and petition for relief, pertain to errors of judgment, not jurisdiction. The MTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties from the inception of the case. Any mistake in the application of procedural rules does not equate to a lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, petitioner did not sufficiently allege or prove extrinsic fraud, which involves a deliberate deception that prevented a party from fully presenting its case. The procedural missteps were consequences of petitioner’s own negligence or that of its counsel, not the product of fraud by the opposing party. Since the proper remedies of appeal and petition for relief were lost through petitioner’s inaction, it cannot resort to the extraordinary remedy of annulment of judgment.