You are on page 1of 6

LAPULAPU DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION, LLDHC filed a complaint for Annulment of Foreclosure with Writ

petitioner, of Mandatory Injunction against GSIS.


vs.
GROUP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, respondent.
RTC BR. 27 LAPU-LAPU CITY

Having the same power and prerogatives, courts of coequal GMC filed a complaint for Specific Performance with Damages
and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other’s against GSIS. The complaint seeks to compel GSIS to execute a Final
orders and judgments. Deed of Sale in favor of GMC covering the Marigondon lots, the
purchase price thereof having been paid in full by GMC to GSIS.
The ultimate test to determine the existence of forum shopping is
the vexation caused the courts and the litigants by the repeated Allowed to intervene, LLDHC filed a Motion to Dismiss the
invocation of substantially the same facts, issues and reliefs, thereby complaint for specific performance. Said motion having been denied,
unnecessarily clogging court dockets and creating the possibility of LLDHC filed its Answer in Intervention and thereafter participated in
conflicting rulings and decisions. the proceedings as intervenor.

After a full-blown trial, a decision was rendered:


CASE:
1. GSIS to execute the final deed of absolute sale and deliver the
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, seeking the certificates of title of land to GMC;
annulment of the April 30, 1999 Decision and the December 29, 1999 2. GSIS to pay GMC damages;
Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) 3. Dismissed the intervenor’s complaint-in-intervention for lack of
evidence of legal standing and legal interest in the suit, as well
as failure to substantiate any cause of action against either
FACTS: plaintiff or defendant.

LLDHC was the registered owner of seventy-eight (78) lots RTC BR. 27 LAPU-LAPU CITY (APPEAL)
located at Barrio Marigondon, Lapu-lapu City. LLDHC entered into a
Project and Loan Agreement with GSIS. To secure payment of the loan, LLDHC, as intervenor, and GSIS as defendant, filed their
LLDHC executed a real estate mortgage over its 78 lots at Marigondon, respective Notices of Appeals. Their appeals were dismissed.
Lapulapu City in favor of GSIS.

LLDHC having failed to develop the property and defaulted in the RTC BR. 38 MANILA
payment of its loan, GSIS foreclosed the mortgage. After the lapse of the
redemption period, GSIS consolidated its ownership over the mortgaged Decision was rendered:
lots and the corresponding transfer certificates of title were issued in its
name. GSIS executed a Deed of Conditional Sale covering its 1. Annulled the foreclosure by GSIS of the mortgage over the land;
Marigondon lots in favor of GMC. 2. Cancelled the consolidated certificates of titles issued in the
name of GSIS and directed the Register of Deeds (RD) of Lapu-
Lapu City to issue new certificates of titles over those parcels of
RTC BR. 38 MANILA land in the name of the LLDHC;
3. Ordered LLDHC to pay the GSIS; and xxxxxxxxx
4. Ordered GSIS to execute a properly registrable release of (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments
discharge of mortgage over the parcels of land after full payment of Regional Trial Courts; and
by LLDHC. xxxxxxxxx

COURT OF APPEALS LLDHC should have filed a timely Petition for Review under Rule
45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
LLDHC filed a Complaint, seeking the annulment of the RTC Br. But, this is all academic now. The appellate court’s decision had become
27 Lapu-Lapu decision. final and executory.

In a decision, this Court dismissed the complaint for It has been settled that a judgment can be annulled only on
annulment of judgment, on the following ground that there is no showing two (2) grounds:
from the allegations of the petition that the respondent court is without
jurisdiction over the subject matter and of the parties. petitioner has no 1. that the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or lack of
cause of action for the annulment of judgment. The complaint must due process of law; or
allege ultimate facts for the annulment of the decision (Avendana v. 2. that it has been obtained by fraud.
Bautista, 142 SCRA 39). There is none in this case. Neither of these grounds obtain in the case at bench. x x x.

No appeal having been taken by LLHDC, the decision of this LLDHC had ample participation in RTC Br. 27 Lapu-Lapu City
Court became final and executory, and entry of judgment was made. case as intervenor

It cannot be assailed on the ground of fraud. In order for fraud to


SUPREME COURT serve as a basis for the annulment of judgment, it must be extrinsic or
collateral in character, otherwise there would be no end to litigations.
LLDHC filed a petition for certiorari. Like the complaint in CA, Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party
the petition also seeks the annulment of the RTC Br. 27 Lapu-Lapu City which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the
decision. defeated party [petitioner herein] has been prevented from
exhibiting fully his side of the case, by fraud or deception practiced
In its Resolution, the Supreme Court dismissed LLDHC’s on him by his opponent. This type of fraud is decidedly absent in the
petition: case at bench.

The instant petition is actually another Petition for Annulment of LLDHC sought a reconsideration of the above resolution but its
Judgment of the Decision of the RTC Br. 27 Lapu-Lapu City. motion was denied with finality by the Supreme Court.

Under Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise


known as The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, it is the Court of RTC BR. 27 LAPU-LAPU CITY
Appeals (then the Intermediate Appellate Court), and not this Court,
which has jurisdiction to annul judgments of Regional Trial Courts, Judge Risos issued an order directing the execution of the
viz: judgment in the case, pursuant to which the corresponding writ of
execution was issued.
SEC. 9. Jurisdiction -- The Intermediate Appellate Court shall exercise:
LLDHC and GSIS filed their respective motions to stay Judge Barias issued an order, giving GMC ten (10) days from
execution, both of which were denied. notice thereof within which to remove all its structures erected therein,
equipment, machineries and other materials from the properties while all
On motion of GMC, Judge Risos issued an Order, directing the security guards assigned therein and persons associated with them were
Register of Deeds of Lapu-lapu City to cancel the Transfer Certificate of directed to vacate the premises also within ten (10) days from notice
Titles of the properties involved in this case and to issue new ones in the thereof.
name of GMC and to deliver the same to the latter within ten (10) days
after such Order shall have become final.
RTC BR. 27 LAPU-LAPU CITY

RTC BR. 38 MANILA Acting on GMCs Omnibus Motion and the


Manifestation/Explanation of RD, Judge Risos issued an Order:
Judge Barias issued a writ of execution in the case filed by
LLDHC. RTC Manila Sheriff Ruefa sent a letter to the RD of Lapu-Lapu 1. Ordering LLDHC to show cause in writing within ten (10) days
City, ordering him to cancel the consolidated certificate of title issued in from receipt thereof why it should not be declared in contempt
the name of GSIS and to issue new certificates of title over subject lots in 2. Issuing a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction to restrain
the name of LLDHC. immediately all persons acting on orders or by authority of
intervenor LLDHC from carrying out any and all acts in defiance
A writ of possession was issued commanding Sheriff Ruefa to of such Court’s final and executory judgment, orders and writ of
cause GSIS and all persons claiming rights under it to vacate the lots in execution aforesaid and the removal of GMC’s machinery,
question and to place LLDHC in peaceful possession thereof. equipment and supplies thereon, as well as the ouster therefrom
of plaintiffs duly authorized representatives, personnel and
security guards;
RTC BR. 27 LAPU-LAPU CITY 3. Issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to direct
the ouster of intervenor LLDHC;
Judge Risos issued an Order reiterating the order and writ of 4. Declaring in contempt RD of Lapu-Lapu City and directing his
execution, as well as the order directing the RD of Lapu-Lapu City to immediate detention and confinement at the City Jail of Lapu-
effect the transfer of the titles to subject lots in favor of GMC, declaring lapu City as long as he persists in his interference, disobedience
any and all acts done by the RD of Lapu-Lapu City null and void starting and obstruction of justice by not complying with the directives of
with surreptitious issuance of new titles in the name of LLDHC, and, in such Court
the interim, enjoining the RD of Lapu-Lapu City from recording and/or 5. Directing the Office of the City Sheriff to implement compliance
registering any transfer, disposition, or transaction regarding said lots, with paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) above, particularly the detention
which may be executed by LLDHC and/or GSIS. and confinement of Atty. Dioscoro Y. Sanchez, Jr., RD, Lapu-
lapu City, if he continues to refuse to transfer the titles of the land
Judge Risos held in abeyance all contempt proceedings against in dispute after ten (10) days from receipt of this order,
the RD of Lapu-Lapu City to allow him to forge (sic) himself of the authorizing him for these purposes to secure the assistance of
contemptuous act charged by the plaintiff. the Office of the Chief of Police of Lapu-lapu City, who is likewise
directed to provide a sufficient number of his men in the service
to fully and faithfully carry out these orders, including the
RTC BR. 38 MANILA
detention and confinement aforesaid, until further orders from
this Court.
The corresponding writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction was Orders and Writs issued for the execution and enforcement of that
issued. Decision. The CA enjoined LLDHC, its agents and representatives, the
RTC of Manila and the RD of Lapulapu City from obstructing or
interfering with the implementation of the Order issued by the Lapu-lapu
SUPREME COURT RTC. Hence, this Petition.

LLDHC came to this Court on a petition for certiorari with


preliminary injunction praying that respondents (GMC and Judge ISSUES:
Risos) cease and desist from proceeding with the execution of the 1. Whether or not the decision of the Manila RTC could be declared
decision on the theory that the decision of the RTC Br. 38 Manila is a ineffectual by the judgment of the Lapu-Lapu City RTC
supervening event which makes it mandatory for Respondent Judge 2. Whether or not LLDHC is guilty of forum shopping
Risos to stop execution of the judgment in RTC Br. 27 Lapu-Lapu City 3. Whether or not the refusal of Justices Verzola and Tuquero to
case. voluntarily inhibit or disqualify themselves from acting on the
present case is proper and justifiable
In denying due course to said petition, this Court ratiocinated
that the instant petition is petitioner’s latest attempt to resist the RULING:
implementation or execution of that decision using as a shield a decision
of the RTC Br. 27 Manila. We are not prepared to allow it. The applicable 1. NO. Courts of coequal and coordinate jurisdiction may not
rule and jurisprudence are clear. The prevailing party is entitled as a interfere with or pass upon each other’s orders or processes, since they
matter of right to a writ of execution, and the issuance thereof is a have the same power and jurisdiction. As correctly stated by the CA, the
ministerial duty compellable by mandamus. We do not believe that Decision rendered by the Manila RTC -- while final and executory --
there exists in this instance a supervening event which would justify a cannot bind herein private respondent, which was not a party to the case
deviation from this rule. before the said RTC. A personal judgment is binding only upon the
parties, their agents, representatives and successors in interest.

RTC BR. 27 LAPU-LAPU CITY In its Memorandum, LLDHC argues that the Decision of the
Manila RTC is superior to that of the Lapulapu RTC and must therefore
Respondent RD and intervenor LLDHC, through separate prevail.
motions, sought a reconsideration of Judge Risos’ orders. Respondent
Judge Fernandez, who succeeded Judge Risos, issued an Order We do not agree. The records of the case clearly show that the
granting the two instant motions. Lapulapu Decision has become final and executory and is thus valid and
binding upon the parties. Obviously, LLDHC is again trying another
GMC sought a reconsideration of said order. Its motion for backdoor attempt to annul the final and executory Decision of the
reconsideration was, however, denied. Lapulapu RTC:

1. It was LLDHC that filed a Notice of Appeal contesting the


COURT OF APPEALS Lapulapu RTC Judgment which was rejected by the said RTC for
being frivolous and dilatory. Since petitioner had done nothing
The CA affirmed the Orders of the RTC Br. 27 Lapulapu City thereafter, the Decision clearly became final and executory.
freeing the RD from indirect contempt of court. It also declared without However, upon receipt of the Manila RTC Decision, petitioner
force and effect the Decision of the RTC Br. 38 Manila, as well as the found a new tool to evade the already final Lapulapu Decision by
seeking the annulment of the latter in a Petition with the CA. Petitioner contends that its Complaint for the annulment of the
However, the appellate court dismissed the action, because mortgage foreclosure had been filed in the Manila RTC almost ten years
petitioner had been unable to prove any of the grounds for prior to GMCs Complaint for specific performance and damages in the
annulment; namely lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud. Because Lapulapu RTC. Thus, petitioner asserts that it cannot be liable for forum
no appeal had been taken by LLDHC, the ruling of the CA also shopping.
became final and executory.
2. The Supreme Court likewise recognized the finality of the CA In the present case, after the Lapulapu RTC had rendered its
Decision when it threw out LLDHCs Petition for Certiorari. Decision in favor of private respondent, petitioner filed several petitions
Jurisprudence mandates that when a decision becomes before this Court and the CA essentially seeking the annulment thereof.
final and executory, it becomes valid and binding upon the
parties and their successors in interest. Such decision or First Philippine International Bank v. CA[17] stresses that what is
order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter truly important to consider in determining whether forum shopping exists
how erroneous it may have been. The perfection of an is the vexation caused the courts and the parties-litigants by one who
appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by asks different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same
law is mandatory. Therefore, since the Lapulapu Decision or related facts and causes and/or to grant the same or substantially the
has become final and executory, its execution has become same relief, in the process creating the possibility of conflicting rulings
mandatory and ministerial on the part of the judge. The CA and decisions.
correctly ruled that the Lapulapu Judgment is binding upon
LLDHC which, by its own motion, participated as an intervenor. Because of LLDHC’s actions, the execution of the Lapulapu
Petitioner likewise claims that Private Respondent GMC cannot Decision has been needlessly delayed and several courts vexed.
escape the adverse effects of the final and executory judgment of the
Manila RTC. 3. YES. Petitioner claims that Justices Artemio G. Tuquero and
Eubolo G. Verzola gravely abused their discretion in refusing to
Again, we do not agree. A trial court has no power to stop an voluntarily inhibit or disqualify themselves from acting on the case at bar
act that has been authorized by another trial court of equal rank. As while it was pending in the CA. They allegedly participated in the
correctly stated by the CA, the Decision rendered by the Manila RTC -- Judgment rejecting its Petition for Certiorari assailing the Execution
while final and executory -- cannot bind herein private respondent, which Order issued by the Lapulapu RTC.
was not a party to the case before the said RTC. A personal judgment is
Again, petitioner is clutching at straws. As a general rule,
binding only upon the parties, their agents, representatives and
judges are mandated to hear and decide cases, unless legally
successors in interest.
disqualified. However, they may voluntarily recuse themselves on
the ground of bias or prejudice, expression of opinions that may
LLDHC grievously errs in insisting that the judgment of the
show partiality, personal knowledge of the case, or distant affinity
Manila RTC nullified that of the Lapu-lapu RTC. As already adverted to
earlier, courts of coequal and coordinate jurisdiction may not interfere or former association with one of the parties or the latters counsel.
with or pass upon each other’s orders or processes, since they have the
Justices Tuquero and Verzola acted within the bounds of duty
same power and jurisdiction. Except in extreme situations authorized
when they took part in the deliberation of the assailed Decision. By
by law, they are proscribed from doing so.
alleging that the appellate magistrates should disqualify themselves
2. YES. There is forum shopping whenever, as a result of an because of their past participation in past case, petitioner merely calls
adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other attention to the repetitive nature of its pleadings and petitions. If indeed
than by appeal or certiorari) from another. the assailed Decision involves a totally different matter from that
disposed of in that same case, then petitioner should have no reason to
worry about the impartiality of the said justices.

Without the written consent of all parties in interest, the law


bars justices from reviewing rulings or decisions rendered by them
as lower court judges. This situation does not exist in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED, and the assailed Decision


AFFIRMED. Treble costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on leave.