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.