SUPREME COURT No. 182645 JUNE 22, 2011 DECLARES RTC IRIGA CITY SPEC. PROC. No. IR-1110 AMENDED DECISION IMMUTABLE

           

          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, 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. 
(sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/182645.htm )

EXPLANATION:

      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. 

    Unlike the RTC Amended Decision, the assailed Court of Appeals Resolution/Decision of April 16, 2002 in CA-G.R. No. SP 57417, although lapsing also into finality, the CA Decision was an ERRONEOUS RULING, and had NO JURISDICTION over the Iriga City RTC Branch 34 Special Proceedings No. IR-1110 case at all, the Jaime Robles petition for appeal being imperfect for Robles' failure to file a Record on Appeal, MANDATORY and JURISDICTIONAL in all Special Proceedings cases.  For this the CA Decision fell on the third category of being a VOID JUDGMENT and whose finality was 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 clearly described and cited by the Ponente himself, the Hon. Supreme Court Justice Peralta in the 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 CA Decision CANNOT BECOME IMMUTABLE, UNLIKE the finality of the Amended Decision of RTC Iriga City, which had been declared 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. 

         
        

          It is also noteworthy to share the parting statement of the June 22, 2011 Supreme Court Decision of SC-G.R. No. 182645, before the said ruling dismissed the petition for Certiorari 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 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.