DIONA V.

BALANGUE

TOPIC: ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 47 ON THE GROUND OF

LACK OF DUE PROCESS

FACTS

On March 2, 1991, Balangue obtained a loan of P45,000 from petitioner,

payable in 6 months and secured by a Real Estate Mortgage over a parcel of land.
When the debt became due, respondent failed to pay. Thus, petitioner prayed
before the RTC the following: 1) payment of the principal obligation + interest of
12% per annum 2) payment of actual damages which should not be less than
10,000; P25,000 for attorneys fee, and P2,000 per hearing as appearance fee. 3)
Issuance of a decree of foreclosure for the sale at public auction of the property 4)
costs of the suit. Respondents were declared in default, petitioner was allowed to
present her evidence ex parte. RTC granted petitioners complaint. It granted,
among others, the payment of the obligation plus imposition of 5% interest per
month. Petitioner filed Motion for Execution, but before it could be resolved,
respondents filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment claiming that not all of them were
served summons, thus a new trial should be conducted. RTC granted the issuance of
a Writ of Execution but the writ could not be satisfied so the property was auctioned
with the petitioner as the lone bidder.

Respondent moved to correct/amend Judgment and to set aside execution

sale claiming that the parties did not agree on the imposition of 12% per annum
interest, yet, surprisingly, the RTC awarded 5% per month (or 60% per annum). RTC
granted respondents motion and modified the interest rate to 12% per annum.
Petitioner elevated the matter to CA via petition for certiorari under Rule 65. CA held
that the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding 5% monthly interest but at the
same time pronouncing that it gravely abused its discretion in reducing the rate on
interest to 12% per annum. It furthered that the proper remedy is not to amend the
judgment but to declare that portion a nullity. CA recomputed the judgment and
arrived at 12% interest rate per annum. Petitioner sought reconsideration which was
denied by CA. Thus, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the CA erred in granting the respondents petition for

annulment of judgment of the RTC despite the fact that the decision has become
final and already executed contrary to the Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment.

HELD

NO. The grant of 5% monthly interest violated respondents right to due

process and, hence, the same may be set aside in Petition for Annulment of
Judgment filed under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. Grant of 5% monthly interest is
way beyond the 12% per annum interest sought in the complaint and smacks of
violation of due process. It is settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for
in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought for. Due process considerations
require that judgments must conform to and be supported by the pleadings and
evidence presented in court. The RTCs award of 5% monthly interest or 60% per
annum lacks basis and disregards due process. Respondents were deprived of
reasonable opportunity to refute and present controverting evidence as they were
made to believe that the complainant [herein petitioner] was seeking for what she
merely stated in her complaint. Even the RTC candidly admitted that it made a
glaring mistake in directing the defendants to pay interest on the principal loan at
5% per month which is very different from what was prayed for by the plaintiff.