Servicewide Specialists, Incorporated v.

The Sheriff of Manila Ponente: Feria DOCTRINE: A petition for relief from judgment must be filed in the same court that had rendered such judgment QUICK FACTS: Servicewide Specialists filed a case against Diaz in the RTC of Manila Branch 50, which ordered in its favor. Diaz filed a petition for relief from judgment at the RTC of Manila but at Branch 12. The Deputy Sheriff of Manila prevented the auction sale over Diaz properties from occurring as a result of the appeal FACTS: Nature: Mandamus Plaintiff: Servicewide Specialists Incorporated Respondent: The Sheriff of Manila, Deputy Sheriff Enriquito A. Violeta and Roy Diaz Facts Servicewide Specialists filed with the RTC of Manila (branch 50) an action for replevin and damages against Roy Diaz. After Diaz had filed his answer, a pre-trial conference was set with both parties being duly notified and commissioned to attend. Diaz and his counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial, so he was declared as in default as prayed by the counsel for Servicewide. Servicewide then presented its evidence ex-parte Ruled for the plaintiff and against Diaz; ordered the latter to pay the amount of his obligation

TC

Court also granted the motion for execution filed by petitioner Diaz filed a petition for relief from judgment at the RTC of Manila (branch 12) Servicewide filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the petition was filed out of time, failed to indicate a good and substantial defense, or failed to show the fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence as basis for the petition and it was not filed in the same court and in the same cause of action Branch 12 dismissed Diaz petition for lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the same

TC

Diaz filed a notice of appeal to the IAC. Meanwhile, a writ of execution pursuant to the order of execution was issued by Branch 50 The deputy sheriff issued a notice of levy and sale of the properties but, on the date of the sale itself, he refused to proceed with the auction because of the protest of the private respondent based on his appeal from the order dismissing his petition for relief

ISSUE: 1) Whether or not the appeal made by Diaz could be recognized by a different branch of the RTC 2) Whether or not an appeal will prevent the execution of a final and executory judgment 3) Whether or not Diaz was given notice of the pre-trial DECISION: HELD: 1) In the case of Braca vs. Tan, the Court ruled that its clear in Rule 38 that the petition for relief from a judgment of the CFI must be filed with the same court that rendered the judgment and in the same cause wherein the judgment was rendered. This is in line with the fact that once a court has taken jurisdiction over a case, in spite of their being multiple possible venues, it acquires such jurisdiction to the exclusion of other possible venues. Furthermore, allowing a 2nd court to try the said case upon its merits would produce the anomalous effect of depriving the original court of jurisdiction it had already acquired over the case The Court rules that Diaz was incorrect in bringing his action to Branch 12 instead of Branch 50 (which had originally tried the case) as it is Branch 50 that could order the judgment complained of to be set aside and proceed to hear and determine the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted Even though a judge is named as a respondent in a petition for relief from judgment, HE IS NOT CONSIDERED A PARTY. This is unlike in a petition for certiorari where the judge is made a party respondent because he is alleged to have acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. In a petition for

2)

3)

relief from judgment, the petitioner claims due to extrinsic fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, he has been unjustly deprived of a hearing or has been prevented from taking an appeal In order to stay execution, it is necessary that Diaz obtain a writ of preliminary injunction. As the court held in Asian Surety and Insurance Co., Inc vs. Relucio, the writ is necessary precisely because of the fact that judgment had already become final and executory, otherwise the remedy would be a motion for new trial. While its true that in ordinary cases, an appeal will cause the trial court to lose its jurisdiction over its judgment and cannot order its execution, this rule will not apply when a judgment has already become final and executory; the only remedy would be to file for a preliminary injunction, which may be granted by the lower court or the appellate court An appeal to the judgment or order denying relief to the appellate court does not reverse or modify the judgment on the merits because the judgment is already final and executory. The appellate court is enabled to determine the existence of any of the grounds relied upon and if there is merit in the petitioners cuase of action or defense - it reverses the denial or dismissal, sets aside the judgment and remands the case for a new trial If the petition for relief is filed out of time, the appellate court must also be apprised of the merit of the case of the party who assails such denial or dismissal. If the appellate court finds justifiable ground and a meritorious case, it will reverse the denial or dismissal and allow the appeal from the decision in the main case. i. The current case shows that Diaz failed to comply with the resolution requiring him to specify particularly the date on which his counsel received a copy of the decision it was likely filed way beyond the reglementary period of 60 days. The Court ruled in the case of Taroma vs. Sayo that it is best that the notice of pre-trial be served to party through or care of his counsel at counsels address with the express imposition upon counsel of the obligation of notifying the party of the date, time and place of the pre-trial conference and assuring that the party either appear thereat or deliver to counsel a written authority to represent the power to compromise the case, with the warning that a party who fails to do so may be non-suited or declared in default. Ruled for the petitioners. Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff are to proceed with the sale at public auction

SC