SINCERE Z. VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs.MARLYN P. NITE, respondent. G.R. No.

148211 July 25, 2006

FACTS: Marilyn Nite, the respondent, obtained a loan from petitioner Villanueva and as a security for the loan, she issued an ABC check (Asian bank Corporation) thereto. The date however was later on change but with consent of Villanueva. Upon presentment of check by petitioner, it was dishonored due to material alteration, so respondent Nite who already left the country, thru her representative, then instead partially settle her loan with the agreement that the balance would be payable on a later date. However, only six (6) days thereafter, Villanueva instituted an action for sum of money against ABC bank for the full amount of dishonored check where RTC ruled in his favor and ordered the bank to pay Villanueva. Only then respondent Nite found out that her account lacked such amount. She went to CA seeking to annul RTC order and decision, who ruled now on her favor finding fraud and bad faith attendant on part of Villanueva. Hence this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not Judgment promulgated by RTC which was already satisfied maybe annulled and set aside? HELD: Supreme Court find for Respondent Marilyn Nite. 1. Respondent Nite may avail of the remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 a. Annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be annulled is promulgated. It can be filed by one who was not a party to the case in which the assailed judgment was rendered. b. If the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner, annulment of orders and decision of RTC by Court of appeals is proper c. In the case at bar, she was not made a party to the suit against ABC. Thus, she was neither able to participate in the original proceedings nor resort to the other remedies because the case was filed when she was abroad d. Annulment of judgment may be based only on lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud which prevents the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court, or is used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the controversy. This refers to acts intended to keep the unsuccessful party away from the courts as when there is a false promise of compromise or when one is kept in ignorance of the suit. e. And SC uphold CAs finding of extrinsinc fraud. 1st, instituting an action barely 6 days after a compromise has been settled for the balance of the loan, claiming for the full and whole amount of the loan the fact that it was already partially paid, of which Villanueva did not deny receiving, and not impleading respondent Marilyn to be a party to the case knowing she just left for abroad, to prevent her from opposing the claim. These are evident of bad faith and fraudulent intention 2. Also, equally important, RTC decision may be annulled for lack of jurisdiction over the person of respondent Nite pursuant to pertinent provision of Negotiable instruments law which substantially holds that no privity of contract between ABC and petitioner Villanueva as the contract of loan was between Villanueva and Nite. Thus, No collection suit could prosper without respondent Nite who was an indispensable party under Rule 3, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court. a. As she is a party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action. b. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. Wherefore, Petition Denied.