Annulling a final and executory judgment

A JUDGMENT attains finality after the expiration of the period to file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal.

It also becomes final and executory if there is no other legal remedy available to the losing party after the judgment is rendered by the Supreme Court or if the latter denies a motion for reconsideration.

“The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment of adjudicating bodies must become final and executory on some definite day fixed by law” (One Shipping Corporation v. Penafiel, G.R. 192406, January 21, 2015). A judgment attaining finality therefore becomes immutable and unalterable.

“This quality of immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law” (G.R. 192406, January 21, 2015).

“The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments are (1) the correction of clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments” (G.R. 192406, January 21, 2015).

The exceptions are concerned only with corrections on the original judgment or in declaring a judgment void.

What are the legal remedies of an aggrieved party from a judgment that has attained finality? These include a petition for relief from judgment or a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 38 and Rule 47, respectively, of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The petition for relief from judgment will be discussed by this author in a different article.

The case of Macabingkil v. People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation provided for a third remedy which is “either a direct action, as certiorari, or by collateral attack against the challenged judgment (which) is void upon its face, or that the nullity of the judgment is apparent by virtue of its own recitals” (cited in Arcelona, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. 102900, October 2, 1997).

Lawyers are cautioned that certiorari is not a remedy for a lost appeal.

An annulment of judgment is “a remedy in equity… [available] only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment… sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking [in] jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud” (Pinausukan Seafood House v. Far East Bank & Trust Company, G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).

“Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the judgment or final order is either lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action, or lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The former is a matter of substantive law because statutory law defines the jurisdiction of the courts… [while]… [t]he latter is a matter of procedural law, for it involves the service of summons or other process on the petitioner” (G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).

“A judgment or final order issued by the trial court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action is always void… [b]ut the defect of lack of jurisdiction over the person, being a matter of procedural law, may be waived by the party concerned either expressly or impliedly” (G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).

“Fraud is extrinsic… where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat…” (G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).

“The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented the petitioner from having his day in court. Nonetheless, extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief” (G.R. 159926, January 20, 2014).

“In Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, this Court