G.R. No. 163186
February 28, 2007
Second Division
Ponente: Quisumbing, J.
Gist:
The principle of immutability of judgments is subject only certain exceptions. Absence of any exception renders the decision final and executory. In addition, a motion for relief from judgment is an extraordinary remedy available only if there are no other remedies.
Facts:
Sometime in April 1993, Marlun Lisbos was driving van registered under the name of petitioner Danilo Reyes along EDSA in Caloocan City. The van sideswiped Fausto who fell and suffered injuries. Fausto was brought to a hospital for treatment but subsequently succumbed to his wounds.
Lisbos was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide in the MTC.
Fausto’s wife, Carmen R. Baldovizo, and children, Edgar and Carmelo, filed before the RTC a separate complaint for damages against Lisbos, Danilo Reyes, petitioner Emerlito F. Aguila, the actual operator and possessor of the van, and Times Surety and Insurance Company, the insurer of the van under a third-party liability insurance contract.
The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Carmen, Edgar and Carmelo R. Baldovizo. Petitioners Aguila and Reyes filed a petition for relief from judgment before the RTC which was denied in a Resolution dated November 20, 2000.
Meanwhile, the Baldovizos moved for the issuance of a writ of execution after the judgment in their favor attained finality. However, petitioners filed (1) a motion for reconsideration of the November 20, 2000 Resolution and (2) a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the certification against forum shopping was defective.
The trial court granted the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution and denied petitioners’ motions.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the order for the issuance of the writ of execution and informed the trial court of their intention to appeal the November 20, 2000 Resolution denying their petition for relief from judgment. Petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration of the November 20, 2000 Resolution but it was denied by the court as well as the reconsideration of the order for the issuance of the writ of execution. In addition, the trial court resolved to strike off the name of Lisbos in its March 7, 2000 Decision for having been inadvertently included therein.
The trial court issued an Amended Decision fated August 13, 2001, which deleted the name of Marlun Lisbos as a party liable for damages.
On appeal, the CA denied the appeal for being improper and ruled that Aguila and Reyes had lost their right to appeal since no appeal of the March 7, 2000 Decision was made within the reglementary period. Hence, the decision became final and executory. The appellate court also sustained the Amended Decision which deleted the name of Marlun Lisbos among the parties held liable.
Issue:
Whether the petitioners have the right to appeal the amended decision after the original decision became final and executory
Ruling:
The petition was denied. The petitioners have lost their right to appeal the amended decision after the original decision became final and executory.
Under Section 2, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, a judgment or final order becomes final and executory if no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed within the period provided by the Rules.
Before a judgment becomes final and executory, that judgment may be amended. Upon finality of the judgment, the court loses its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. Except for correction of clerical errors or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which causes no prejudice to any party, or where the judgment is void, the judgment can neither be amended nor altered after it has become final and executory.
As a general rule, final and executory judgments are immutable and unalterable, except under these recognized exceptions, to wit: (a) clerical errors; (b) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; and (c) void judgments. None of the exceptions are present in this case.
Petitioners received the March 7, 2000 Decision on April 24, 2000 and had until May 9, 2000 to file an appeal or a motion for new trial or reconsideration. During this period, petitioners filed instead a petition for relief from judgment on May 4, 2000 which the trial court denied.
Unfortunately for the petitioners, their petition for relief from judgment was not the proper remedy because it is an extraordinary remedy available only if there are no other remedies. The remedies available to petitioners were the filing of (1) an appeal, (2) a motion for reconsideration, or (3) a motion for new trial.
In addition, the Amended Decision which had stricken out the name of Marlun Lisbos among those liable is void for lack of jurisdiction. It is not necessary to amend the original decision holding the petitioners, Marlun Lisbos, and the insurance company solidarily liable. In an action based on quasi-delict, the liability of the employer is direct and primary, subject to the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.
