Tajanlangit, Jr. v. Orophil Shipping International Co., Inc.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 227766. December 11, 2017.]

ESTATE OF ESTEBAN V. TAJANLANGIT, JR., REPRESENTED BY ESTEBAN V. TAJANLANGIT, III, petitioner, vs.OROPHIL SHIPPING INTERNATIONAL CO., INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated December 11, 2017, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 227766(Estate of Esteban V. Tajanlangit, Jr., represented by Esteban V. Tajanlangit, III v. Orophil Shipping International Co., Inc.) — This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the February 22, 2016 Decision 1 and October 7, 2016 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136209, which affirmed the March 21, 2014 3 and June 19, 2014 4 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 20 (RTC), denying outright the petition for relief from judgment.

The Antecedents

On March 24, 2008, respondent Orophil Shipping International Co., Inc. (Respondent) filed a Complaint for Damages 5 before the RTC against Boracay Property Holdings, Inc. (BPHI) and the incorporators of 7107 Islands Shipping Corp., namely: Esteban C. Tajanlangit, Jr. (Tajanlangit, Jr.), Maria V. Tajanlangit, Angel de Leon, Jr., Demetrio P. Sonza, Tederico G. Tiotangco and Jens A. Hansen (collectively referred to as Defendants). The complaint alleged, among others, that Tajanlangit, Jr., as President of BPHI and representing himself as President and Chief Executive Officer of 7107 Islands Shipping Corp., engaged the services of respondent as ship managers and subsequently executed a Ship Management Agreement; that pursuant to the agreement, respondent took possession of BPHI's newly acquired vessel, Coco Explorer 2, which was renamed "7107 Island Cruise," for a monthly management fee of P120,000.00 commencing on November 11, 2007 until January 1, 2009; and that the management fee excludes government charges, salaries of the crew, provisions, cost of repairs and other services necessary for the movement and upkeep of the vessel until fitted for operational status. It was also alleged that respondent recommended to Tajanlangit Jr. the necessary repairs to be undertaken to the vessel to make it commercially fit amounting to P12,901,277.19; that Tajanlangit Jr. agreed and partially paid the amount of P6,268,235.00; that with the approval of Tajanlangit Jr., respondent proceeded to contract various suppliers to effect said repairs; and that while repairs were ongoing, respondent reminded BPHI to deliver the required documents of the vessel but BPHI failed to do so. Later, respondent found out that the vessel was delisted because its Panamanian registration expired; that the Bureau of Customs (BOC) issued an arrest and seizure order placing the vessel under the custody of the BOC; that the suppliers contracted by respondent remained unpaid and threatened to sue the latter; and that despite repeated demands to pay, BPHI refused to pay their just and valid obligation. 6

In their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, 7 defendants averred that Tajanlangit, Jr. was not acting for and in behalf of BPHI or 7107 Island Shipping Corp. when he contracted the services of respondent; that as of October 2007, 7107 Islands Shipping Corp. has not been formed and Tajanlangit, Jr. could not have been its incorporator; that Tajanlangit, Jr. did not engage the services of respondent because he never signed to indicate his conformity with the Ship Management Agreement, and that he only signed the first page of the agreement; that respondent was aware that the vessel was of foreign registry and had to be re-flagged; that respondent overstated the cost of the items for the repair of the vessel; and that defendants have no personal liability under the agreement because they never accepted the said agreement.

On July 2, 2011, Tajanlangit, Jr. died and was substituted by his estate represented by Esteban C. Tajanlangit III (petitioner). 8

In its Decision, 9 dated May 17, 2013, the RTC ordered petitioner to pay respondent the amount of P6,633,042.19 for the unpaid purchases plus interest and attorney's fees. It held that Tajanlangit, Jr. failed to prove that he was authorized by BPHI thru a Board Resolution to enter into a memorandum of agreement. The RTC also found that he did not represent 7107 Islands Shipping Corp. in the said agreement as the latter was only incorporated on December 14, 2007, or more than two years after its execution. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

Premises considered, the Court finds for the plaintiff and adjudges Esteban Tajanlangit, Jr. represented by Esteban Tajanlangit, III liable to the plaintiff for the amount of P6,633,042.19 plus 6% interest per annum from the filing of the complaint. Upon finality of the judgment, the entire amount shall earn an interest of 12% per annum until it is fully paid.

Attorney's fees of P50,000.00 is hereby awarded.

The case against Boracay Property Holdings, Inc. Esteban V. Tajanlangit, III, Maria V. Tajanlangit, Angel L. De Leon, Jr., Demetrio P. Sonza, Tederico G. Tiotanco and Jens A. Hansen is DISMISSED.

Absent convincing proof on their counterclaims, defendants' counterclaims are DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED. 10

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC in an Order 11 dated September 4, 2013.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA but it was dismissed in a Resolution 12 dated November 28, 2013, for being a wrong mode of appeal.

Consequently, on March 20, 2014, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment 13 praying that the May 17, 2013 decision and September 4, 2013 order of the RTC be set aside and that respondent's complaint be dismissed. He averred that Tajanlangit, Jr. should not be held personally liable to respondent for failure of the latter to prove that there was a valid contract between them; that respondent failed to substantiate its claim amounting to P6,633,042.19; and that the execution should not be issued against petitioner but it should be filed as a separate claim against the estate of Tajanlangit, Jr. CAIHTE

The RTC Order

In its Order, 14 dated March 21, 2014, the RTC denied outright the petition for relief from judgment for being insufficient in form and substance.

Not satisfied, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In an Order, 15 dated June 19, 2014, the RTC denied the motion holding that petitioner cannot file a petition for relief from judgment after its petition for review before the CA had been dismissed because such relief was not a device for reviving a lost appeal that had been lost due to petitioner's own negligence or a mistaken mode of procedure.

Undeterred, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.

The CA Ruling

In its Decision 16 dated February 22, 2016, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, thus:

The RTC correctly ruled that petitioner is not entitled to relief from judgment because the petition was insufficient in form and substance and improperly availed of.

Under Section 1, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, the court may grant relief from judgment only when a judgment or final order is entered, or any proceeding is taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Petitioner based its Petition for Relief on the alleged fraud committed by Orophil when it alleged that petitioner is liable for the adjudged amount of PhP6,633,042.19. This is not the fraud contemplated under the said section. Fraud must be extrinsic or collateral, that is, the kind which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court. Clearly, petitioner failed to present evidence of fraud or deception employed by Orophil to deprive it of the opportunity to present its case to the court.

As correctly pointed out by the RTC, to which we are in full accord:

The mistake referred to under Rule 38 is that usually committed by a party's counsel in procedural matters.

The facts extant in the record clearly show that the movant was accorded every opportunity to present his evidence and was not prevented from taking an appeal because of fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence.

Where fraud is the ground, the fraud must be extrinsic or collateral. The extrinsic or collateral fraud that invalidates a final judgment must be such that it prevented the unsuccessful party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense and the losing party from having an adversarial trial of the issue. There is extrinsic fraud when a party is prevented from fully presenting his case to the court as when the lawyer connives to defeat or corruptly sells out his client's interest.

On the other hand, mistake contemplated under Section 1 of the same rule refers to mistake of fact which relates to the case. Petitioner alleged that there was insufficient proof to show that there was a valid contract between Esteban Jr. and Orophil. The RTC likewise committed a mistake of fact in declaring inadmissible Exhibits "1 to 3" and "5" of petitioner and in finding that the former is personally liable to the money judgment in favor of the latter.

As admitted by petitioner, the order denying admission of Exhibits "1 to 3" and "5" was issued on October 25, 2012 and the denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration was issued on March 11, 2013. However, petitioner failed to elevate the same to this Court within the reglementary period of 60 days from notice of order or judgment. Thus, petitioner cannot again assail the same issue in this petition.

Whereas, the judgment holding petitioner liable to Orophil in the amount of P6,633,042.19 with interest was rendered on May 17, 2013. Said decision became final and executory on October 7, 2013 after petitioner failed to appeal the same. The issues petitioner is raising are clearly matters that are questions of judgment not errors of jurisdiction. It should have been an issue ripe for determination in an appeal not in a special civil action of certiorari. An appellate court in a petition for certiorari cannot review a trial court's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings. Errors of judgment cannot be errors of jurisdiction or those involving the commission of grave abuse of discretion. 17

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution, 18 dated October 7, 2016.

Hence, this petition raising the following —

ISSUES

I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT.

II.

THAT THERE WAS MISTAKE OF FACTS WHEN IT WAS RULED THAT ESTEBAN C. TAJANLANGIT, JR., SHOULD BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE TO THE RESPONDENT DESPITE INSUFFICIENT PROOF PRESENTED BY THE LATTER TO JUSTIFY THAT THERE WAS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN HEREIN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.

III.

THAT THERE WAS FRAUD COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT WHEN IT STATED IN THE COMPLAINT THAT HEREIN PETITIONER WAS LIABLE IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PHP6,633,042 FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED AND TOTAL COST OF MATERIALS USED FOR THE REPAIR AND RENOVATION OF THE VESSEL "COCO EXPLORER II," WHEN IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS UNSUBSTANTIATED.

IV.

THAT THERE WAS MISTAKE IN NOT IMPLEADING THE PROPER PARTY CONCERNED DESPITE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT OF THE DEATH OF DEFENDANT ESTEBAN C. TAJANLANGIT, JR. 19

The Ruling of the Court

The Court finds the petition unmeritorious.

A petition for relief from judgment is a remedy provided by law to any person against whom a decision or order is entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. This remedy is equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy provided by law or the rules. 20 When a party has another remedy available to him, which may either be a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking such appeal, he cannot avail of the remedy of petition for relief. 21

In the case of Romago, Inc. v. Siemens Building Technologies, Inc., 22 the Court explained that:

Thus, a party is not entitled to relief under Rule 38, Section 2, of the Rules of Court if he was not prevented from filing his notice of appeal by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Such relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of the judgment, when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence or to a mistaken mode of procedure for that matter; otherwise, the petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal, which has already been lost either due to inexcusable negligence or due to a mistake of procedure by counsel. 23

The CA did not err in ruling that petitioner is not entitled to relief from judgment because no fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence was employed to prevent petitioner from filing an appeal from the decision of the RTC.

Petitioner's contentions that there was mistake of fact when the RTC ruled that Tajanlangit, Jr. should be held personally liable to respondent despite insufficient evidence presented by the latter; and that there was fraud as respondent's claim was unsupported by evidence, are misplaced. These are not the mistake or fraud contemplated under Section 1 of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. The word "mistake," which grants relief from judgment, does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial. Such errors may be corrected by means of an appeal. "Fraud," on the other hand, must be extrinsic or collateral, that is, the kind which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court, or was used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the controversy. 24

Evidently, petitioner assailed the May 17, 2013 decision of the RTC by petition for review on certiorari to the CA; that the CA dismissed the petition outright due to wrong mode of appeal; and that a resolution, dated April 7, 2014, was issued by the CA declaring the May 17, 2013 decision of the RTC final and executory, and was recorded in the book of entries as of January 3, 2014. 25 Hence, petitioner may not validly resort to a petition for relief from judgment to rectify the erroneous filing of a petition for review on certiorari questioning the May 17, 2013 decision and September 4, 2013 resolution of the RTC. If petitioner lost a remedy at law from an adverse judgment due to his own negligence, such conduct precludes him from relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. As stated, to do otherwise would be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which had already been lost. 26

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The February 22, 2016 Decision and October 7, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 136209 are AFFIRMEDin toto. DETACa

SO ORDERED."

 

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino with Associate Justices Mariflor Punzalan Castillo and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring; Rollo, pp. 50-59.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino with Associate Justices Mariflor Punzalan Castillo and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring; Id., pp. 60-61.

3.Id., at p. 237.

4.Id., at pp. 289-291.

5.Id., at pp. 296-304.

6.Id., at 297-300.

7.Id., at pp. 330-344.

8.Id., at p. 8.

9.Id., at pp. 150-167.

10.Id., at p. 167.

11.Id., pp. 188-190.

12. Order, dated June 19, 2014, Rollo, p. 290.

13.Rollo, pp. 191-231.

14.Id., p. 237.

15.Id., 289-291.

16.Id., pp. 50-59.

17.Id., at 54-55.

18.Id., at pp. 60-61.

19.Id., pp. 10-11.

20.Cagayan Economic Zone Authority v. Meridien Vista Gaming Corp., G.R. No. 194962, January 27, 2016, 782 SCRA 345, 353.

21.Thomasites Center for International Studies v. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 203642, January 27, 2016, 782 SCRA 391, 398-399, citing Philippine Amanah Bank v. Contreras, G.R. No. 173168, September 29, 2014, 736 SCRA 567.

22. 617 Phil. 875 (2009).

23.Id. at 891.

24.Gomez v. Montalban, 572 Phil. 460, 472 (2008).

25.Rollo, p. 493.

26.Romago, Inc. v. Siemens Building Technologies, Inc., 617 Phil. 875, 891 (2009).