APPEAL FROM CTA

- CTA is no longer a QJA under R43

- A party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the CTA en banc may file with the SC
a verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

APPEAL FROM COA

- To SC on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided
- filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the execution of the judgment
o unless the SC shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just.
- If decision of COa affects a govt agency, the appeal may be taken by the proper head of
that agency.

APPEAL FROM COMELEC

- to the SC on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.
o Unless otherwise provided by law, or by any specific provisions in the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, any decision, order or ruling of the Commission
- PERIOD: within 30 days from promulgation

APPEAL FROM CSC

- R43

APPEAL FROM OMBUDSMAN

- R43
- The following decisions are unappealable:
o 1. In administrative cases where respondent is absolved of the charge
o 2. In case of conviction, where penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand,
of suspension of not more than one month or a fine equivalent to one month
salary
- The CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only.
- It cannot review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
criminal or non-administrative cases
- Appeal may be made to SC where the findings of the Ombudsman on the existence of
probable cause (in criminal cases) are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction (R65)

APPEAL FROM NLRC

- R43
- The remedy of a party aggrieved by the decision of the NLRC is to file a MR and,
- If denied, file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 within 60 days from
notice of the decision. In observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, this should
be filed with the CA.

c. Relief from Judgments, Orders, and Other Proceedings, Remedies after finality of judgment
1. Petition for Relief [Rule 38]
2. Action to Annul Judgment [Rule 47]
3. Certiorari
4. Collateral Attack of a Judgment that is Void on its Face

Nature
A legal remedy whereby a party seeks to set aside a judgment rendered against him by a
court whenever he was unjustly deprived of a hearing or was prevented from taking an
appeal because of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence (FAME). [Quelnan v.
VHF Phils, G.R. No. 138500 (2005)]

A petition for relief from judgment

- is an equitable remedy allowed only in exceptional cases when there is no other
available or adequate remedy.
- When a party has another remedy available, either MNT or appeal, and he was not
prevented by FAME from filing such motion or taking such appeal, he cannot avail
himself of this petition
- In addition, a petition for relief is available only when the loss of the remedy was due to
the petitioner’s own fault
- Relief under Rule 38 will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the
effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy of law was due to his own
negligence, or a mistaken mode of procedure for that matter; otherwise, the petition for
relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has already been lost
either because of inexcusable negligence or due to a mistake of procedure by counsel.

Grounds for Availing of the Remedy

1. When judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken
against petitioner through FAME
• Petition is filed in the same court, in the same case with prayer for the judgment,
order, proceeding to be set aside.

2. When petitioner has been prevented from taking an appeal by FAME

• Petition is filed in the same court, in the same case with prayer for the appeal to be
given due course [Secs. 1-2, Rule 38]

Note: “Extrinsic fraud” - fraud which the prevailing party caused to prevent the losing party
from being heard on his action or defense. Such fraud concerns not the judgment itself but the
manner in which it was obtained. [AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. RTC-Marikina City,
G.R. No. 183906 (2011)]

ii. Time to File Petition

1. Within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other
proceeding to be set aside, and
2. Not more than 6 months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding
was taken. [Sec. 3, Rule 38]
Note: These two periods must concur, are not extendible and are never interrupted.

iii. Contents of Petition

The petition must be:
1. Verified;
2. Accompanied by an affidavit showing the FAME relied upon; and
3. The facts constituting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense,
as the case may be.[Sec. 3, Rule 38]

Note: A petition for relief from judgment may only be availed of by a party to the proceeding.
[Alaban vs CA, 470 SCRA 697, 705]

The absence of an affidavit of merits is a fatal defect and warrants denial of the petition.
[Fernandez v. Tan Tiong Tick, G.R. No. 15877
(1961)]
However, it is not a fatal defect so long as the facts required to be set out also appear in the
verified petition. [Fabar Inc. v. Rodelas, G.R. No. L-46394 (1977)]

When affidavit of merit is not necessary:

1. When there is lack of jurisdiction over the defendant;
2. When there is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
3. When judgment was taken by default;
4. When judgment was entered by mistake or was obtained by fraud; or
5. Other similar cases.
(1 Regalado 434-435, 2010 Ed.]

d. Annulment of Judgments or Final Orders and Resolutions

Nature
- An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity exceptional in character
availed of only when other remedies are wanting. [Spouses Teano vs The Municipality
of Navotas, G.R. No. 205814 (2016)]
- It is a remedy independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is
rendered. It is not the continuation of the same case, like in the reliefs of MR, appeal, or
petition for relief. [CIR vs Kepco Ilijan Corp.,G.R. No. 199422 (2016)]
- Such remedy is considered an exception to the final judgment rule or the doctrine of
immutability of judgments. [Diona v. Balangue, 688 SCRA 22, 34, (2013)]

Purpose
The purpose of such action is to have the final and executory judgment set aside so that there
will be a renewal of litigation.
When proper
- An action for annulment of judgment may be availed of even if the judgment to be
annulled has already been fully executed or implemented. [Islamic Da’wah Council of
the Philippines. v. CA, G.R. No. 80892 (1989)]

When not available

The remedy may not be invoked:
a. Where the party has availed himself of the remedy of new trial, appeal, petition for
review, or other appropriate remedy and lost, or
b. Where he has failed to avail himself of those remedies through his own fault or negligence.

Note: It is a condition sine qua non that one must have failed to avail of those remedies,
through no fault attributable to him. Otherwise, he would benefit from his own inaction or
negligence.

Grounds for Annulment

The annulment may be based only on the
grounds of:
a. Extrinsic fraud, and
• Note: Such shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed
of, in a MNT or petition for relief.

b. Lack of jurisdiction.[Sec. 2, Rule 47]

Extrinsic fraud
It refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in litigation committed outside the trial
of the case where the defeated party prevented from fully exhibiting his side by
fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponents like:

a. Keeping him away from court,

b. Giving him false promise of a compromise, or
c. Where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat.

Note: Use of forged instruments, perjured testimonies, or other manufactured evidence is

not extrinsic fraud since such evidence does not preclude a party’s participation in trial.

Lack of jurisdiction
- Either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party, or over the subject
matter of the claim. [1 Regalado 630, 2010 Ed.]
- Petitioner must show absolute lack of jurisdiction and not mere abuse of judicial
discretion; a claim of grave abuse of discretion will support a petition for certiorari but not an
action for annulment of judgment.
- Only evidence found in the record can justify nullity. [Arcelona v. CA, G.R. No. 102900
(1997)]
Period to file action

iii. Effects of Judgment of Annulment

Based on lack of jurisdiction
- A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or
resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being
refiled in the proper court. [Sec. 7, Rule 47]

Based on extrinsic fraud

- The court may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for
new trial had been granted therein. [Sec. 7, Rule 47]

Difference: When it is based on extrinsic fraud, the original judgment was not tainted by
jurisdictional defects but by the deception which then resulted in the prejudicial error [1
Regalado 635-636, 2010 Ed.]

Note: The judgment of annulment may include the award of damages, attorney’s fees, and
other reliefs. [Sec. 9, Rule 47]

Effect on prescriptive period for refiling of the original action

When suspended - from the filing of said original action until the finality of the judgment
of annulment.

When not suspended - where the extrinsic fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the original
action.

Collateral Attack of Judgments

Direct attack vs. Collateral attack
a. Direct attack - The object of an action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin
its enforcement.

b. Collateral/Indirect attack - In an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the

judgment or proceeding is made as an incident thereof. [Hortizuela v. Tagufa, G.R. No. 205867
(2015)]

The validity of a judgment or order of the court, which has become final and
executory, may be attacked in three ways:
a. By a direct action or proceeding to annul the same
• To annul and enjoin enforcement of the judgment, where the alleged defect is not
apparent on its face or from the recitals contained in the judgment;

b. By direct action, as certiorari, or by collateral attack in case of apparent nullity

• The collateral attack must be against a
challenged judgment which is void
upon its face as where it is patent that
the court which rendered said
judgment has no jurisdiction or that the
nullity of the judgment is apparent from
its own recitals

c. By a Petition for Relief under Rule 38

• Must be taken in the same action or
proceeding in which the judgment or
order was entered.