THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239728. March 13, 2019.]
ANTONIO SISON, JR., PEPITO DAMASCO AND ANECITO ORTIZ, petitioners, vs.TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS-MINDANAO STATION, THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6 AT PROSPERIDAD, AGUSAN DEL SUR AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 13, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239728 (Antonio Sison, Jr., Pepito Damasco and Anecito Ortiz vs. Twenty-Third Division of the Court of Appeals-Mindanao Station, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6 at Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur and People of the Philippines). — Before the Court is a Petition for Annulment of its Resolution dated October 5, 2015 in G.R. No. 219267.
In G.R. No. 219267, petitioners Antonio Sison, Jr., Pepito Damasco, and Anecito Ortiz filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Resolutions dated October 22, 2014 and June 5, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 01138-MIN. In its challenged Resolutions, the appellate court had dismissed petitioners' appeal of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, Branch 6, in Criminal Case Nos. 6152 to 6157, which convicted them for six (6) counts of libel committed against the six members of the Board of Directors of NGEI Multi-Purpose Cooperative during a radio broadcast. Petitioners were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay a fine of PhP6,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus moral damages of PhP50,000.00 to be paid jointly and severally to each of the six private complainants. This Court, in the Resolution dated October 5, 2015, denied the Petition for Review in G.R. No. 219267 for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged Resolutions as to warrant the exercise by the Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. An Entry of Judgment was made, thus, rendering the Resolution dated October 5, 2015 of the Court in G.R. No. 219267 final and executory on June 29, 2016. aICcHA
On May 28, 2018, petitioners filed the present Petition for Annulment of Judgment, alleging that their case qualifies for the relaxation of the rule that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable; that petitioners cannot be prejudiced due to the failure of their counsel to file their appellants' brief before the Court of Appeals; and that they are not at fault for the judgment of conviction becoming final and executory. Along with their Petition, petitioners also filed an Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court and for Deliberation En Banc of the Attached Copy of Petition for Annulment.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kepco Ilijan Corporation 1 (Kepco Case), the Court pronounced that a collegial court, such as the Court of Appeals or the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), sitting en banc, may not be called upon to annul a decision of one of its divisions which had become final and executory, for it is tantamount to allowing a court to annul its own judgment and acknowledging that a hierarchy exists within such court. In the process, it also betrays the principle that judgments must, at some point, attain finality. A court that can revisit its own final judgments leaves the door open to possible endless reversals or modifications, which is an anathema to a stable legal system.
The Court further pointed out in the Kepco Case that an annulment of judgment involves the exercise of original jurisdiction, as expressly conferred on the Court of Appeals by Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, Section 9 (2). It also implies power by a superior court over a subordinate one, as provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, wherein the appellate court may annul a decision of the regional trial court, or the latter court may annul a decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial court. However, notably, the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction to annul the final and executory judgments of the Court of Appeals and the CTA, thus:
A direct petition for annulment of a judgment of the CTA to the Supreme Court, meanwhile, is likewise unavailing, for the same reason that there is no identical remedy with the High Court to annul a final and executory judgment of the Court of Appeals. RA No. 9282, Section 1 puts the CTA on the same level as the Court of Appeals, so that if the latter's final judgments may not be annulled before the Supreme Court, then the CTA's own decisions similarly may not be so annulled. And more importantly, it has been previously discussed that annulment of judgment is an original action, yet, it is not among the cases enumerated in the Constitution's Article VIII, Section 5 over which the Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction. Annulment of judgment also often requires an adjudication of facts, a task that the Court loathes to perform, as it is not a trier of facts. 2
Based on the foregoing, absent any law or rules specifically providing for such a remedy before the Supreme Court, it cannot take cognizance of a petition for annulment of judgment of the Court of Appeals or the CTA, much less, of judgment rendered by one of its own Divisions, even if the Court is to sit En Banc.
WHEREFORE, the Court, acting on the instant Petition and all other pending incidents in the case, RESOLVES as follows:
(1) To DISMISS the instant Petition for being an improper pleading which is not cognizable by this Court, whether in Division or En Banc;
(2) To DENY petitioners' Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court and for Deliberation En Banc of the Attached Copy of Petition for Annulment in view of the Court's action in the previous paragraph;
(3) To NOTE the Entry of Appearance dated May 24, 2018 of Atty. Romualdo B. Densing as counsel for petitioners and to GRANT his request that he be furnished with copies of all pleadings, notices, and other court processes in this case at Door 1, Cabongcag Apartment, Dr. Parulan-Ubalde Sts., P-5, Brgy. 22-A, 9014 Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental; and
(4) To RETURN to petitioners the excess legal fee of PhP170.00 they had paid under O.R. No. 0211256 dated June 20, 2018. EHaASD
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 787 Phil. 698 (2016).
2.Id. at 707.