XXV.

REMEDIES AFTER FINALITY OF JUDGMENT (RULE 38 AND 47)

Case No. 4

Afdal vs. Carlos, G. R. No. 173379, [December 1, 2010], 651 PHIL 104-116

FACTS:

Respondent Carlos filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages against
petitioners Guijabar and Afdal. For failure of petitioners to file their Answer, MTC ruled
in favor of Carlos. Petitioners alleged that they were not properly served with summons
and this prompted them to file a Petition for Relief from Judgment before the MTC which
was later withdrawn after realizing that it is a prohibited pleading. Petitioners then filed
the Petition for Relief before the RTC but such Petition was denied by the same court
due to lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE:

Whether the RTC is correct in dismissing the Petition for Relief of Judgment?

HELD:

Yes. Petitioners cannot file a Petition for Relief with the MTC because it is a
prohibited pleading in an unlawful detainer case. Petitioners cannot also file a Petition
for Relief before the RTC because it had no jurisdiction to entertain petitions for relief
from MTC. The RTC did not err in dismissing the petition for relief. The remedy of
petitioners in such situation is to file a petition for certiorari under the RTC under Rule
65 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioners but the Supreme
Court treats the petition for relief from judgment as a petition for certiorari and
accordingly grants the instant petition.