Carreon vs Aguillon G.R. No. 240108, June 29, 2020 [Case Digest]

 

Carreon vs Aguillon

G.R. No. 240108, June 29, 2020

Facts:

                A complaint for breach of contract, damages, and attorney's fees filed by respondent Mario Aguillon (Aguillon) against Carreon and his wife, Isabel. RTC, upon Aguillon's motion, declared the defendants in default for failure to file their responsive pleading within the reglementary period despite receipt of summons and a copy of the complaint through their "son" at their residence.

                The RTC's Decision attained finality, and consequently, a writ of execution was issued on April 12, 2011. Consequently, the Sheriff levied on the property belonging to the defendants, which was purportedly their family home. The property was thereafter sold at a public auction where the highest bidder thereof was respondent Betty P. Lopez (Lopez). Thereafter, a Final Certificate of Sale was issued in her favor.9

On December 5, 2013, Lopez filed a petition for cancellation10 of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-208860 registered in the name of the defendants and for the issuance of a new one in her name. On December 12, 2013, the RTC issued an Order requiring the defendants to appear at the hearing of the petition. However, the Return of Service dated January 27, 2014 did not reflect service upon them of a copy of the December 12, 2013 Order. Nonetheless, the RTC proceeded to hear the petition; and on February 17, 2014, it issued an Order granting the same. The defendants were then directed to surrender their Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-208860 while the Register of Deeds of Davao City was ordered to cancel the same and to issue a new one in the name of Lopez.

Left with no legal recourse, Carreon, by himself, filed the Annulment Petition before the CA on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud premised on the improper/invalid service of summons. In a Resolution dated July 28, 2017, the CA dismissed the Annulment Petition on procedural grounds as Carreon failed to, inter alia: (a) attach the affidavit of service of the petition to the court of origin as well as the adverse parties; (b) attach a copy of TCT No. T-208860; and (c) submit affidavit/s of witness/es or documents in support of the cause of action or defense.

Carreon filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation, explaining that (a) the affidavit of service is not required in a petition for annulment of judgment, the same being an original action before the CA; hence, the rule on service of summons is applicable; (b) the failure to attach a copy of TCT No. T-208860 is not a fatal error to warrant the dismissal of the petition, but he nonetheless attached a copy thereof; and (c) Carreon himself, as well as his only child , Malaya De Luna Carreon (Malaya De Luna), and other witnesses have executed their respective affidavits in support of the Annulment Petition.

In a Resolution dated February 19, 2018, the CA reconsidered its original ruling, stating that the procedural infirmities in Carreon's petition have already been rectified. However, on the merits, it found that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Carreon and his wife Isabel, there being no irregularity in the service of summons upon them. Hence, the CA dismissed the Annulment Petition entirely.

Carreon then filed on March 8, 2018 a Motion for Reconsideration (March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration) of the February 19, 2018 Resolution. In a Resolution dated May 4, 2018, the CA noted without action the said motion, opining that it was a second motion for reconsideration which shall no longer be entertained for being a prohibited pleading. [Section 2, Rule 52]

 

Issue:

                Whether or not the motion for Reconsideration filed by Carreon on March 8, 2018 was a second motion for reconsideration.

 

 

 

Held:

                NO.        Carreon's March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration can hardly be considered as a second motion for reconsideration as contemplated by the Rules. In fact, the aforesaid motion should have actually been treated as a first motion for reconsideration because it assailed the CA's reconsidered ruling (i.e., the Resolution dated February 19, 2018), and not its original Resolution dated July 28, 2017. As will be discussed below, these Resolutions were premised on completely different legal grounds from one another.

                To recount, Carreon's earlier Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation was in response to the CA's original Resolution dated July 28, 2017 which dismissed the Annulment Petition based purely on procedural grounds. As such, this motion was intended to address the alleged procedural infirmities pointed out by the CA. In its February 19, 2018 Resolution, the CA reconsidered its original resolution, holding that there was a "rectification of the infirmities" in the Annulment Petition.22 Moreover, in the same February 19, 2018 Resolution, the CA proceeded to tackle the merits of the Annulment Petition itself. In particular, the CA held that the issue of extrinsic fraud raised in the Annulment Petition was "too unsubstantial to warrant consideration." Moreover, anent the claim of lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants, the CA, citing the presumption of regularity in official duties, found that the service of summons upon the defendants was proper; therefore, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over them.

                Clearly, the CA's February 19, 2018 Resolution is a new ruling based on legal grounds that are totally different from its original July 28, 2017 Resolution; hence, when Carreon filed the March 8, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration, he was technically filing a first motion for reconsideration of the February 19, 2018 Resolution wherein the CA, for the first time, traversed the merits of his Annulment Petition. As such, the prohibition on the filing of a second motion for reconsideration found in Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules did not come into play. Evidently, what the Rules seek to proscribe is a second motion for reconsideration, which essentially repeats or reiterates the same arguments already passed upon by the tribunal, when it resolved the first motion for reconsideration filed by the same party. If the issues had already been passed upon and there is no substantial argument raised, then the finality and immutability of a judgment should not be obviated.