4/14/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
Subsequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment[13] dated May 22,
2014 accompanied by his own Affidavit of Merit.[14] In the petition, he sought the
annulment of the Decision dated March 20, 2014 of the RTC.[15]
Petitioner argued, among others, that the RTC Decision dated March 20, 2014 should
be set aside on the ground of fraud considering that respondents knowingly specified
an erroneous address for the purpose of fraudulently gaining a favorable judgment.[16]
Petitioner further argued that respondents could have referred to the General
Information Sheet of VCAII where the valid address of petitioner was mentioned.[17] As
a result, petitioner was not properly served with summons to be able to answer the
allegations of respondents, and for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over his person.[18]
Petitioner furthermore argued that respondents committed fraud through the following
acts: (1) violating Section 1(a), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court relating to the institution
of criminal and civil actions, i.e., respondents filed a civil case against petitioner despite
the previous filing and dismissal of criminal cases against him and his co-accused;[19]
and (2) stating in their Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping that they
have not filed any similar case despite the fact that they filed the civil case to recover
civil liability even though it was already deemed instituted in the criminal case.[20]
Respondents then filed their Answer.[21] Afterwards, petitioner filed his Reply.[22]
Ruling of the RTC
Subsequently, on July 21, 2016, the RTC rendered its Decision[23] denying the petition
for lack of merit. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Relief from Judgment
filed by petitioner-defendant Kenneth Duremdes, through counsel, is hereby
DENIED for lack of merit.
Accordingly and as prayed by the respondents-plaintiffs in their Answer to
the Petition, let a Writ of Execution be ISSUED in view of the Decision dated
March 20, 2014 in Civil Case No. Q-09-65496 for collection of sum of money
plus damages.
SO ORDERED.[24]
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the RTC denied it in its Order[25] dated
April 12, 2017. The RTC then ordered the issuance of a writ of execution in view of the
finality of the Decision dated March 20, 2014.[26]
Thus, on July 17, 2017, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari (With Application for a
Temporary Restarining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction[27] before the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Resolution[28] dated July 25, 2017, the CA dismissed the petition. It ruled that
the petition for certiorari was fatally defective based on the following infirmities which
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66374
2/16