People vs Balinga [G.R No. 159222] Case Digest

 

People vs Balinga

G.R No. 159222

 

Facts:

On the basis of a complaint lodged by Traders Royal Bank, an information for estafa was filed against Rafael M. Bitanga (Bitanga) before the RTC. RTC promulgated in absentia a Decision finding Bitanga guilty as charged.

Bitanga filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with Prayer for Other Reliefs on the ground that extrinsic fraud was allegedly perpetuated upon him by his counsel of record, Atty. Benjamin Razon. He alleged that he received copy of the February 29, 2000 RTC Decision only on December 13, 2001.

The CA granted the Petition for Annulment of Judgment. The foregoing CA Decision now being questioned by the People (petitioner).

 

Issue:

Where or not CA erred in granting the petition for annulment of judgment held by RTC.

 

Held:

Yes.

 

Ratio:

Section 1, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, limits the scope of the remedy of annulment of judgment to the following:

Section 1. Coverage.— This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

The remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment being questioned was rendered in a criminal case. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure itself does not permit such recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from the enumeration of the provision of Section 18, Rule 124 thereof.

 

A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through proceedings attended by extrinsic fraud.