This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-06-20 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Let it be stressed at the outset that before a party can avail of the reliefs provided for by Rule 47, i.e., annulment of judgments, final orders, and resolutions, it is a condition sine qua non that one must have failed to move for new trial in, or appeal from, or file a petition for relief against said issuances or take other appropriate remedies thereon, through no fault attributable to him. If he failed to avail of those cited remedies without sufficient justification, he cannot resort to the action for annulment provided in Rule 47, for otherwise he would benefit from his own inaction or negligence.[30] (Citation omitted) | |||||
|
2011-09-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| A petition for annulment of judgments or final orders of a Regional Trial Court in civil actions can only be availed of where "the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner."[12] It is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances and such action is never resorted to as a substitute for a party's own neglect in not promptly availing of the ordinary or other appropriate remedies.[13] The only grounds provided in Sec. 2, Rule 47 are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2010-06-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Section 1, Rule 47 provides that it does not allow a direct recourse to a petition for annulment of judgment if other appropriate remedies are available, such as a petition for new trial, appeal or a petition for relief.[17] If petitioner fails to avail of these remedies without sufficient justification, she cannot resort to the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47, for otherwise, she would benefit from her inaction or negligence.[18] | |||||
|
2004-03-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the party.[33] Mrs. Cerezo could have availed of a new trial or appeal but through her own fault she erroneously availed of the remedy of a petition for relief, which was denied with finality. Thus, Mrs. Cerezo may no longer avail of the remedy of annulment. In any event, the trial court clearly acquired jurisdiction over Mrs. Cerezo's person. Mrs. Cerezo actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court, submitting herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court. The defense of lack of jurisdiction fails in light of | |||||