COMPLETE LEGAL BRIEF OF HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ ET AL. INTESTATE ESTATE CASE SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. IR-1110 WITH AMENDED DECISION BECOMING FINAL, EXECUTORY IMMUTABLE
Sometime
in July 1989, or about twenty five
years ago to this date, a case was filed by herein petitioners HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, CERTEZA RODRIGUEZ and
ROSALINA RODRIGUEZ PELLOSIS, and was raffled with the Regional Trial Court
Branch 34 of Iriga City. Thereafter,
several groups, including the Office of the Solicitor General, came and opposed
in the case entitled “SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS No. IR-1110 / IN THE MATTER OF THE HEIRSHIP (INTESTATE ESTATE) OF
THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ, ETC.; FOR: HEIRSHIP, APPOINTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATOR AND SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE.”
On
May 31, 1990, petitioner Henry F.
Rodriguez was declared as one of the only three legitimate heirs of this
case, and after posting a bond, was appointed the Judicial Administrator of the
Estate in a Partial Judgment.
An
intensive court battle ensued which lasted for more than ten (10) years between
petitioner Henry Rodriguez and the different oppositors, and thereafter, a DECISION was issued by the Honorable
Intestate Court, the RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City on April 27, 1999. Petitioner
Henry Rodriguez, not satisfied with the said Decision, filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and thereafter a Memorandum, submitting averments of facts and
additional evidences to refute arguments by the oppositors to the Intestate
Court, Honorable Regional Trial Court Branch 34 of Iriga City.
After
reviewing the motion for reconsideration and memorandum, the Honorable Intestate
Court RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City promulgated on August 13, 1999 the AMENDED
DECISION based on meritorious grounds, with petitioners HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ, et al, as the prevailing party;.(RTC Court
rollo pp. 350-375, including pp.66-75, rollo of the case.)
On
November 22, 1999, acting on the notice of appeal filed by Jaime Robles last
October 19, 1999, the Intestate Court RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City DISAPPROVED
the Jaime Robles appeal for not being able to file a Record on Appeal, mandatory and jurisdictional in Special
Proceedings cases like this.
On
January 17, 2000, the Intestate Court RTC Branch 34, Iriga City issued a
CERTIFICATE OF FINALITY for the Amended Decision of this case. On the seventh paragraph, page 3 of the
aforesaid Certificate of Finality, this Honorable Court declared: “The
said AMENDED DECISION has, on
the 26th of December, 1999,
become FINAL AND EXECUTORY.” (Court rollo, pp. 568-570 of the case).
On
February 22, 2000, an Entry of Judgment for the Resolution dated November 24,
1999 was issued by the Supreme Court First Division in the case “Carola F.
Santos, et. al. vs. Henry F. Rodriguez et.al / SC G.R. No. 140271”, which
DENIED the petition for the appeal of Carola Santos et.al., one of the group of
oppositors.
On
February 28, 2000, a Writ of Execution pending appeal was issued by the then
Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC Branch 34 in Iriga City, in compliance to the Order
dated October 29, 1999 of the Intestate Court. (Court rollo, pp. 75-100 of the
case).
On
September 5, 2000, an Entry of Judgment for the Resolution dated July 31, 2000
was issued by the Supreme Court First Division in the case “Florencia M.
Rodriguez vs. Hon. Lore V. Bagalacsa, Henry F. Rodriguez et.al /SC G.R. No.
142477”, which DENIED the petition for appeal on certiorari filed by Florencia
Rodriguez.
Thereafter,
several Orders were issued by the Honorable Intestate Court upon request of
petitioner and prevailing party Henry F. Rodriguez through ex-parte
manifestations, motions and urgent letters to support the compliance to the
Writ of Execution and continuing recovery for the Settlement of the Estate
properties of our decedents.
On
April 16, 2002, acting on the Jaime Robles appeal against the RTC Iriga City
Amended Decision, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution/Decision in CA-G.R.
SP No.57417 which declared the Amended Decision of RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City
null and void. This was an ERRONEOUS
ruling, according to the Supreme Court Decision later issued on December 4,
2009 of the case SC-G.R. No. 182645, and that the Court of Appeals never gained
JURISDICITION over the Amended Decision of Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 of
RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City, since oppositor Jaime Robles was not able to
perfect his appeal when he did not file the mandatory Record on Appeal. For this, the Court of Appeals Resolution is deemed
a VOID JUDGMENT.
On
January 15 and then again on January
19, both of the year 2007, Orders were issued by the RTC Branch 34 of Iriga
City, indorsing all the motions and comments filed in this case by the Office
of the Solicitor General and all other opposing parties including the
manifestations of oppositors, to the Hon. Judge Lore V. Bagalacsa, the
Honorable magistrate who originally decided the case, on the basis of SC
Administrative Circular 5-98. Thereafter,
an Order dated February 14, 2007, in which all of the comments and various
motions of appeal by the Office of the Solicitor General and other oppositors,
including the Comments and Manifestation of Jaime Robles, were DENIED, and
declared “that the Court’s Amended
Decision in this case had already become FINAL and EXECUTORY more than seven (7)
years ago.”
In
the Supreme Court, a Petition for Clarification and Certiorari was filed by
Estate vendee Rene Pascual sometime in the middle part of 2008, the case
entitled: Rene Pascual vs. Jaime Robles / SC-G.R. No. 182645: For Clarification
and Certiorari. On December 4, 2009, the Supreme Court
promulgated a DECISION based on the merits
of the case, the dispositive portion of which specifically states:
“WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is GRANTED.
The 16 April 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
57417 and the February 27, 2007 (should be February 21, 2007) Order of
the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 34 are hereby NULLIFIED. The 13 August 1999 Amended Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Iriga City in SP No. IR-1110 is hereby REINSTATED.(607
SCRA p.770-777, December 4, 2009)
On December 15, 2010, acting on a very late appeal by Jaime Robles to
the Supreme Court in the case G.R. No. 182645 filed by Estate assignee/vendee
Rene Pascual, a Resolution was penned by the Honorable Supreme Court Justice
Diosdado Peralta of the Supreme Court Special Third Division, which PARTLY
granted the appeal of Jaime Robles and temporarily set aside the December 4,
2009 Decision of the Supreme Court Regular Third Division.
Thereafter, on June 22, 2011, a Decision, penned by the Hon.
Supreme Court Justice Diosdado Peralta of the Special Third Division of the
same case G.R. No. 182645, dispositively discussed the personality of Rene
Pascual in filing the petition for Certiorari, and this time, ruled to dismiss
the Pascual SC petition for Certiorari. But
the most important part of this Supreme Court Decision
favoring the Estate was the pronouncement and citation concerning the “immutability of finality of judgments”on
page 8 of the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 182645, starting
with paragraph 3, which reads:
“xxx Hence, by the time herein petitioner filed the
instant petition on the sole basis that he acquired an interest in a portion of
the disputed case, the assailed CA Decision had long become final and
executory.
In Mocorro, Jr. v. Ramirez, this Court
reiterated the long-standing rule governing finality of judgments, to wit:
A
decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This
quality of immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment, even if
the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and
law. And this postulate holds true
whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or by the
highest court in the land. The orderly administration of justice requires that,
at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must
reach a point of finality set by the law.
The noble purpose is to write finis to dispute once and for all. This is
a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no
end to litigations.
xxx
The only exceptions to the rule on the
immutability of final judgments are (1)
the correction of clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries
which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3)
void judgments.
Unlike the August 13, 1999 Amended
Decision of the RTC, Iriga City, Branch 34,
(which was found by the CA to be a complete nullity), there is no showing that the instant
case falls under any of the exceptions enumerated above.
To simplify and interpret the last two
paragraphs of the above cited portion of the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court
Decision in G.R. No. 182645, the
August 13, 1999 Amended Decision of the RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City was the one
being referred to by the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision as “the instant
case”, and which was specifically identified as the IMMUTABLE JUDGMENT, for the
said instant case DID NOT FALL into any of the three categories EXEMPTED FROM
IMMUTABILITY. This instant case was unlike the assailed Court of Appeals
Resolution/Decision of April 16, 2002 in CA-G.R. No. SP 57417, that although
the CA Decision became final and executory, it was a VOID JUDGMENT and had NO
JURISDICTION over the Iriga City RTC Branch 34 Amended Decision at all,
exempted from becoming immutable. The said
Court of Appeals Resolution/Decision together with the Order dated February 21,
2007 by the Iriga City RTC Branch 34 which implemented the said Court of
Appeals Decision were both NULLIFIED by the Supreme Court December 4, 2009
Decision of the same case (SC-G.R. No. 182645), and this was reiterated and
cited even by the Ponente himself, the Hon. Supreme Court Justice Peralta in
another case “Ong vs. PDIC”. Although
the CA Decision may have lapsed into finality like the August 13, 1999 Amended
Decision of the Iriga City RTC Branch 34, the Court of Appeals Decision had
fallen in the third category being a void judgment and thus exempted from
becoming immutable, UNLIKE the Amended Decision of the instant case of RTC
Iriga City, which is now immutable, having committed no errors.
The June 22, 2011 Supreme Court
Decision, in dismissing the petition for Certiorari filed by Supreme Court
petitioner Rene Pascual, a non-party to the original case in RTC Iriga City,
did not affect at all the Amended Decision of Special Proceedings in IR-1110. Anent this, the Supreme Court December 4,
2009 Decision of the same case (SC-G.R. No. 182645), which was set aside by the
December 15, 2010 Resolution, was only meant to give SC Respondent Jaime Robles
a chance to enter his plea and speak out as an indispensible party, but the
aforesaid June 22, 2011 SC Decision never ruled against the Iriga City Amended
Decision nor the December 4, 2009 SC Decision for the latter was never
pronounced as having been reversed, nullified or vacated by the June 22, 2011 SC
Special Third Division Decision, for it is constitutionally illegal for a
Supreme Court Division to nullify, reverse or vacate another Supreme Court
Division Decision which had already become final, but could only be done
through an EN BANC ruling.
By way of statutory construction, the two Supreme Court Decisions of December 4, 2009 and June 22, 2011, of SC
G.R. No. 182645, not contradictory in their pronouncements, are both given
equal weight and importance, and both rulings are applied by the Supreme Court
without conflict. On both Supreme Court
Decisions, the RTC Branch 34 Iriga City Amended Decision was upheld when it was
REINSTATED and was even declared IMMUTABLE, as against the CA Resolution dated
16 April 2002 in CA G.R. SP No.57417, which was exempted from becoming
immutable and classified as a void judgment and was promptly NULLIFIED by the
Supreme Court December 4, 2009 Decision.
Both Supreme Court Decisions December
4, 2009 and June 22, 2011 in SC-G.R. No. 182645 both have now become final and
executory with the issuance of an Entry of Judgment on September 12, 2011, and
which was transmitted to the Court of Appeals and RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City
on December 9, 2011.
It is also noteworthy to
share the parting statement of the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision of SC-G.R.
No. 182645, before dismissing the petition of Rene Pascual:
xxx
“Considering the foregoing,
the Court finds it no longer necessary to address the issues raised by
petitioner.”
XXX
The Supreme Court pointed
out that with the Amended Decision of RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City, having
lapsed into finality and becoming immutable a long time ago, and, the CA Resolution/Decision
being a void judgment from the very start, it was not necessary anymore for the
Highest Court to address the issues raised by SC petitioner Rene Pascual for
the Highest Court had already confirmed that the said Amended Decision had already attained RES JUDICATA status a long time ago (Bachrach vs. CA, 357Phil. 483,
491-1998), and it is now “with prejudice” for Pascual or for any other
party to file any future case to challenge the same since the “instant case” was already declared immutable by the Highest Court of the
land.
Thereafter, on June 22, 2011, a Decision, penned by the Hon.
Supreme Court Justice Diosdado Peralta of the Special Third Division of the
same case G.R. No. 182645, dispositively discussed the personality of Rene
Pascual in filing the petition for Certiorari, and this time, ruled to dismiss
the Pascual SC petition for Certiorari. But
the most important part of this Supreme Court Decision
favoring the Estate was the pronouncement and citation concerning the “immutability of finality of judgments”on
page 8 of the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 182645, which
reads:
The
August 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION of the RTC Branch 34, Iriga City in Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 was the one
being referred to by the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision as “the instant
case”, and was the one specifically described as the IMMUTABLE JUDGMENT, for the
said instant case DOES NOT SHOW that the aforesaid RTC Decision THAT IT FELL INTO ANY OF THE THREE CATEGORIES EXEMPTED FROM
IMMUTABILITY. 
The June 22, 2011 Supreme Court
Decision, in dismissing the petition for Certiorari filed by Supreme Court
petitioner Rene Pascual, a non-party to the original case in RTC Iriga City,
did not affect at all the Amended Decision of Special Proceedings in IR-1110. Anent this, the Supreme Court December 4,
2009 Decision of the same case (SC-G.R. No. 182645), which was set aside by the
December 15, 2010 Resolution, was only meant to give SC Respondent Jaime Robles
a chance to enter his plea and speak out as an indispensible party, but the
aforesaid June 22, 2011 SC Decision never ruled against the Iriga City Amended
Decision nor the December 4, 2009 SC Decision for the latter was never
pronounced as having been reversed, nullified or vacated by the June 22, 2011 SC
Special Third Division Decision, for it is constitutionally illegal for a
Supreme Court Division to nullify, reverse or vacate another Supreme Court
Division Decision which had already become final, but could only be done
through an EN BANC ruling. 
The Supreme Court pointed
out that with the Amended Decision of RTC Branch 34 of Iriga City, having
lapsed into finality and becoming IMMUTABLE a long time ago, and, the CA Resolution/Decision
being a void judgment from the very start, it was not necessary anymore for the
Highest Court to address the issues raised by SC petitioner Rene Pascual in questioning the RTC RULING, for
the Highest Court confirmed that the said Amended Decision had already attained RES JUDICATA status a long time ago (Bachrach vs. CA, 357Phil. 483,
491-1998), and it is now “with prejudice” for Pascual or for any other
party to file any future case to challenge the same since the “instant case” was already declared immutable by the Highest Court of the
land.
.tif)
