This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-07-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The grounds for a petition for annulment are in themselves specific in the same way that the relief itself is. The Rules restrict the grounds only to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud[40] to prevent the remedy from being used by a losing party in making a complete farce of a duly promulgated decision or a duly issued order or resolution that has long attained finality.[41] This certainly is based on sound public policy for litigations and, despite occasional risks of error, must be brought to a definite end and the issues that go with them must one way or other be laid to rest.[42] In turn, lack of jurisdiction the ground relied upon by petitioner is confined only to either lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of the claim.[43] A valid invocation of this ground rests exclusively on absolute lack of jurisdiction as opposed to a mere abuse of jurisdictional discretion[44] or mere errors in judgment committed in the exercise of jurisdiction[45] inasmuch as jurisdiction is distinct from the exercise thereof.[46] Hence, where the facts demonstrate that the court has validly acquired jurisdiction over the respondent and over the subject matter of the case, its decision or order cannot be validly voided via a petition for annulment on the ground of absence or lack of jurisdiction.[47] | |||||