ON MARCH 12, 2018, THE SUPREME COURT NOTED THE SEVERAL 2017 LETTERS OF COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT RENATO B. GOMEZ, PRAYING FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO RECOGNIZE THE SUBMITTED AUTHORITY OF HEREIN BLOGGER. AFTER WORKING FOR ABOUT SEVENTEEN YEARS NOW WITH THE ESTATE, ONE OF THE VERY DAUNTING TASKS WHICH KEPT ME BUSY AT HAND WAS TO CLARIFY WITH THE SUPREME COURT THE REAL STATUS OF THE AUGUST 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION. IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE JUNE 22, 2011 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN 652 SCRA 573, "G.R.No.182645: IN THE MATTER OF THE HEIRSHIP (INTESTATE ESTATES) OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ ET AL AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THEIR ESTATES / RENE PASCUAL VS. JAIME ROBLES" HAS CONCLUSIVELY CLOSED AND DISMISSED THE THIRD PARTY PETITION OF RENE PASCUAL DUE THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
(1) THAT RENE PASCUAL WAS NOT AN ORIGINAL AGGRIEVED PARTY WITH THE RTC AND THE CA, AND THUS, HE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO FILE A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65;
(2) THAT RENE PASCUAL ADMITTED THAT HE IS A THIRD PARTY INTERVENOR, AND UNDER RULE 19, SECTION 2, HE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A CASE WHOSE JUDGMENT HAD LONG BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY; AND
(3) THE LONG STANDING RULE ON THE IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL JUDGMENTS.
WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN AN EARLIER BLOG ABOUT THIS, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, WE WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THE DISPOSITIVE BODY AND FALLO OF THE JUNE 22, 2011 SUPREME COURT DECISION. THE DISCUSSION SHALL BE CENTERED IN THE ISSUE AS TO WHICH OF THE DECISION HAD BECOME FINAL BUT DECLARED VOID AND NEVER COMING INTO IMMUTABILITY, AND WHICH HAD BECOME IMMUTABLE AND UNALTERABLE - THE APRIL 16, 2002 CA RESOLUTION OR THE AUGUST 13, 1999 RTC AMENDED DECISION. WE START ON PAGE 8, ROLLO 1881 OF THE JUNE 22, 2011 DECISION IN G.R.No.182645:
x x x
"It also worthy to note that the disputed Decision (CA Resolution) was promulgated way back on April 16, 2002. The respondents in the said case, namely, Henry Rodriguez, Certeza Rodriguez and Rosalina Pellosis, DID NOT APPEAL. Herein respondent, on the other hand, who was petitioner in the case(CA), filed for a petition on certiorari with this Court assailing a portion of the CA Decision. However, the petition was DENIED via a Resolution issued by the Court on August 1, 2005, and that the same had become final and executory on November 10, 2005. Hence, by the time herein petitioner (Rene Pascual) filed the instant petition on the sole basis that he acquired interest in a portion of the disputed estate, the assailed CA Decision had long become final and executory.
In Mocorro, Jr. vs. 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 dispute once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. x x x
The only exceptions to the rule of 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. x x x
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.
Considering the foregoing, the Court no longer finds it necessary to address the issues raised by the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”
x x x
PRIOR TO THE JUNE 22, 2011 SUPREME COURT DECISION OF THE SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION THAT DISMISSED THE RENE PASCUAL PETITION, THE FORMER THIRD DIVISION SUPREME COURT ISSUED A DECISION ON DECEMBER 4, 2009 IN THE SAME PETITION FOR CERTIORARI (G.R.No.182645), THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF WHICH IS HEREUNDER RESTATED FOR CLARITY:
x x x
"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(21), 2007 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 34 are hereby NULLIFIED. The 13 August 1999 Amended Decision of that Regional Trial Court Iriga City in SP-No.IR-1110 is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.”
x x x
THE DECEMBER 4, 2009 SUPREME COURT DECISION BEING FINAL, IT IS NOTEWORTHY TO RECOUNT THAT ON PAGE 10, PAR. 2 OF THE AUGUST 18, 2010 DECISION IN G.R.No.175116: Jerry Ong vs. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, THE HON. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE DIOSDADO PERALTA, PONENTE OF THE AFORECITED JUNE 22, 2011 DECISION, DISCUSSED IN DETAIL AND EXPLAINED THE FALLO OF 607 SCRA 770, G.R.No.182645, 12-4-2009, WHEREIN THE SUPREME COURT ASSERTED THAT THE APRIL 16, 2002 RESOLUTION WAS INDEED ORDERED NULLIFIED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, AND THUS:
“In In the Matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of
the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al. vs. Jaime M. Robles, we
nullified the CA decision for lack of jurisdiction in taking cognizance of an
appeal from the RTC decision which had already lapsed into finality for failure
of the party to file a record on appeal within the reglementary period, and
said:
This Court has invariably ruled that perfection of
an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only
mandatory but also jurisdictional. The failure to perfect the appeal as required
by the rules has the effect of defeating the right to appeal of a party and
precluding the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. The right to appeal is not a natural right
nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the
law. The party who seeks to avail of the
same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is
lost. The reason for the rules of this nature is because the dispatch of business by courts would be impossible, and intolerable delays would result, without rules governing practice. Public policy and sound practice demand that judgments of courts should become final and irrevocable at some definite date fixed by law. Such rules are necessary incident to the proper, efficient and orderly discharge of judicial functions. Thus, we have held that the failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed reglementary period is not a mere technicality, but jurisdictional. Just as the losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision. Failure to meet the requirements of an appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain any appeal. There are exceptions to the rule, unfortunately respondents did not present any circumstances that would justify the relaxation of said rule. x x x”
x
x x
HAVING SAID THIS, WE NOW GO BACK TO THE CONTROVERSY AS TO WHICH OF THE FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENTS DESERVES TO BE DECLARED A VOID JUDGMENT AND WHICH ONE HAD INDEED BECOME IMMUTABLE AND UNALTERABLE. WE FIRST DISCUSS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DESCRIBES AS A VOID JUDGMENT -
G.R.No.178842: Rene Imperial and Nidsland Resources Inc. vs. Hon. Edgar Armes et al, January 30, 2017, THE SUPREME COURT BEST DESCRIBES A VOID JUDGMENT AS:
NATURE OF A VOID JUDGMENT
A void judgment is no judgment at all
in legal contemplation. In Canero v. University of the Philippines, we
held that-
x x x A void
judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment, but may
be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect
is sought to be given to it. It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for
any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. It is
not entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to those who seek
to enforce. In other words, a void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the
situation is the same as it would be if there was no judgment. x x x
A judgment rendered without
jurisdiction is a void judgment. This want of jurisdiction may pertain to lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person of one of the
parties.
A void judgment may also arise from the
tribunal's act constituting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. In Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio, we explained-
The term "grave abuse of
discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court
or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such
act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." x x x
THE SUPREME COURT FURTHER EXPLAINED THE EFFECTS OF A VOID JUDGMENT IN THE SAME CASE -
EFFECTS OF A VOID JUDGMENT
When grave abuse of discretion taints a judgment, it becomes wholly
void. It may be challenged by direct action which has for its object the
declaration of the nullity of the judgment. It may also be set aside through a
collateral attack.
Thus,
in Guevarra, we allowed the filing of a motion for
reconsideration even if it was made beyond the reglementary 15-day period We
based our ruling on the ground that the order challenged by the motion for
reconsideration was issued with grave abuse of discretion and is null and void.
We explained-
Such judgment or order may be resisted in any action or proceeding
whenever it is involved. It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate
or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored.
Our ruling in Gonzales v. Solid Cement
Corporation is more
unequivocal. In this case, we found that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction, therefore acting outside the contemplation of law. Hence,
even when the period to assail the CA decision had already lapsed, we ruled that it did not become final and
immutable. A void judgment never becomes final. We ruled thus-
The CA's actions outside its jurisdiction cannot produce legal effects
and cannot likewise be perpetuated by a simple reference to the principle of
immutability of final judgment; a void decision can never become final. "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." x x x
x x x
THE VOID JUDGMENT:
THE APRIL 16, 2002 COURT OF APPEALS RESOLUTION, CA-G.R.SP No. 57417, WAS ISSUED AGAINST RULE 41, SECTION 2. THE SUPREME COURT HAS INVARIABLY RULED THAT PERFECTION OF AN APPEAL IN THE MANNER AND WITHIN THE PERIOD LAID DOWN BY LAW IS NOT ONLY MANDATORY BUT JURISDICTIONAL. THE CLEAR PRONOUNCEMENTS OF NO LESS THAN THE HON. JUSTICE PERALTA STATES THAT THE CA JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED GRAVELY LACKING OR WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND AS SUCH WAS NULLIFIED, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE SAID CA JUDGMENT NEVER BECAME FINAL. THE NOVEMBER 15, 2005 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF THE THIRD DIVISION WAS SUPERSEDED BY THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR THE JUNE 22, 2011 DECISION BY THE SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION. THE DISMISSAL OF THE PASCUAL PETITION DID NOT AFFECT THE DECEMBER 4, 2009 DECISION OF THE THIRD DIVISION WHEN THE LATTER JUDGMENT WAS SET ASIDE BY THE DECEMBER 15, 2010 RESOLUTION, EXCLUDING IT FROM THE JUNE 22, 2011 DISMISSAL, AND HAD BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY AS EVIDENCED BY THE PUBLICATIONS MADE BY THE SUPREME COURT REPORTER'S OFFICE IN 607 SCRA 770, 12-4-2009. THE DECEMBER 15, 2010 RESOLUTION WAS EVEN SUPERSEDED BY THE JUNE 22, 2011 DECISION, DECLARING THAT THE QUALITY OF IMMUTABILITY ATTAINED BY THE AUGUST 13, 1999 RTC AMENDED DECISION PRECLUDES THE COURT THAT RENDERED IT OR EVEN THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, INCLUDING THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. IN LINE WITH THE JUNE 22, 2011 SUPREME COURT DECISION, ON JULY 19, 2013, THE COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED A RESOLUTION, THIS TIME IN CA-G.R. CV-100650, THAT ADMITS THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT WAS PRECLUDED FROM TAKING JURISDICTION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL FILED BY JAIME ROBLES IN A VAIN ATTEMPT TO PERFECT HIS APPEAL WITH THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT.
IT IS CLEARLY WITHOUT DOUBT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE APRIL 16, 2002 RESOLUTION, AND COROLLARY TO THIS, THE CA RULING WAS CONSEQUENTLY NULLIFIED AND CATEGORIZED AS A VOID JUDGMENT.
THE IMMUTABLE JUDGMENT:
THE INSTANT CASE, SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO.IR-1110: IN THE MATTER OF THE HEIRSHIP (INTESTATE ESTATES) OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ Y REYES AND ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ Y REYES ET AL AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THEIR ESTATES WAS FILED IN 1989. IN 1991 A PARTIAL JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED ON MARCH 31, 1991 BY THE HON. JOSE PENAS. THEREAFTER, SEVERAL GROUPS OF OPPOSITORS INTERVENED. ON APRIL 27, 1999, THE HON. LORE V. BAGALACSA, ASSISTING JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH 34, IRIGA CITY, RENDERED A DECISION. ON AUGUST 13, 1999, AFTER SEVERAL MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND SUBMISSION OF MEMORANDA BY THE DIFFERENT PARTIES, THE HONORABLE COURT ISSUED THE AMENDED DECISION, WITH HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ ET AL, THE ORIGINAL PARTIES, PRAVAILING IN THE JUDGMENT.
ON JANUARY 17, 2000, A CERTIFICATE OF FINALITY FOR THE AUGUST 13, 1999 AMENDED DECISION WAS ISSUED BY THE HONORABLE COURT UPON MOTION OF THE PREVAILING PARTY, THE HONORABLE JUDGE HAVING KNOWN THAT NOBODY AMONG THE OPPOSITORS WERE ABLE TO PERFECT THEIR APPEALS AND PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI AND ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT. ON FEBRUARY 22, 2000 AND SEPTEMBER 5, 2000, THE SUPREME COURT FIRST DIVISION ISSUED ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS FOR RESOLUTIONS THAT DENIED THE PETITIONS FOR APPEAL AND CERTIORARI, IN G.R.NO.140271: CAROLA SANTOS VS. HENRY RODRIGUEZ, AND G.R.NO.142477:FLORENCIA RODRIGUEZ VS. HON. LORE V. BAGALACSA ET AL, REPECTIVELY.
JAIME ROBLES, ONE OF THE OPPOSITORS TO THE CASE AND THE RTC AMENDED DECISION, FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL, BUT FAILED TO FILE THE REGLEMENTARY RECORD ON APPEAL, MANDATORY AND JURISDICTIONAL UNDER RULE 41, SECTION 2. THUS, THE HONORABLE JUDGE BAGALACSA ISSUED AN ORDER ON NOVEMBER 22, 1999 DISAPPROVING THE ELEVATION OF THE ROBLES APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.
ON APRIL 16, 2002, THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN CA-G.R. SP.NO.57417 FILED BY JAIME ROBLES, RENDERED A RESOLUTION THAT DECLARED THE ENTIRE INSTANT CASE A PATENT NULLITY. RTC PREVAILING PARTY HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS BUT WAS DENIED, AND THEREAFTER, MR. RODRIGUEZ DID NOT ELEVATE HIS APPEAL AGAINST THE CA JUDGMENT WITH THE SUPREME COURT, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CA JUDGMENT, LACKING IN JURISDICTION, COULD NOT SUPERSEDE THE PREVIOUS SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS THAT UPHELD THE RTC AMENDED DECISION. ON THE OTHER HAND, JAIME ROBLES FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI QUESTIONING A PORTION OF THE CA RESOLUTION BUT WAS DENIED ON THE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED AUGUST 1, 2005 IN G.R.NO.168648: JAIME ROBLES VS. HENRY RODRIGUEZ. THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED AN ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AGAINST JAIME ROBLES' PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ON NOVEMBER 15, 2005.
ON FEBRUARY 14, 2007, THE HON. LORE V. BAGALACSA (BY THE AUTHORITY OF SC CIRCULAR 5-98 ISSUED BY THEN HON. CHIEF JUSTICE ANDRES NARVASA AND THE INDORSEMENT ORDERS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED BY THE HON. MULRY MENDEZ AND THE HON. ALFREDO AGAWA, ACTING PRESIDING AND PAIRING JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH 34, IRIGA CITY RESPECTIVELY), ISSUED AN ORDER THAT DENIED THE COMMENTS FILED BY THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL. THE ORDER ISSUED WAS RECEIVED OFFICIALLY BY THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT ON FEBRUARY 15, 2007, THE ORDER HAVING DECLARED THAT THE RTC AMENDED DECISION LONG LAPSED INTO FINALITY, COMMITTED NO ERRORS, AND HAD BECOME IMMUTABLE AND UNALTERABLE, PRECLUDING THE HONORABLE ASSISTING JUDGE HERSELF FROM MODIFYING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT.
ON FEBRUARY 19, 2007, JUDGE LELU CONTRERAS WAS APPOINTED ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH 34, IRIGA CITY. ON FEBRUARY 21, 2007, BARELY THREE DAYS AFTER HER APPOINTMENT, JUDGE CONTRERAS ISSUED AN ORDER DECLARING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS EXPUNGED FROM THE COURT RECORDS WITH THE APRIL 16, 2002 CA RESOLUTION AS BASIS. CLEARLY, THIS ORDER WAS ISSUED IN GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND APPARENT GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW. SHE COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED THAT THERE WERE TWO SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS WITH ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 22, 2000 AND SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 RESPECTIVELY EARLIER ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT FIRST DIVISION THAT UPHELD THE RTC AMENDED DECISION AND WRIT OF EXECUTION, AS AGAINST THE APRIL 16, 2002 CA RESOLUTION WHICH LACKED JURISDICTION AND WAS CONSIDERED A VOID JUDGMENT. THIS SPARKED THE CONTROVERSY THAT THIRD PARTY AND ESTATE VENDEE RENE PASCUAL WANTED TO CLARIFY, THE REASON HE FILED THE PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION AND CERTIORARI IN 2008 IN G.R.NO.182645.
ON DECEMBER 4, 2009, THE SUPREME COURT THIRD DIVISION ISSUED A DECISION THAT NULLIFIED THE APRIL 16, 2002 CA RESOLUTION AND FEBRUARY 21, 2007 RTC ORDER OF JUDGE LELU CONTRERAS.
ON AUGUST 18, 2010, JUSTICE DIOSDADO PERALTA USED THE DECEMBER 4, 2009 DECISION OF G.R.NO.182645 AS CITED JURISPRUDENCE IN WRITING THE DECISION OF THE CASE G.R. NO.175116: JERRY ONG VS. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AND EXPLAINED THAT INDEED THE APRIL 16, 2002 CA RESOLUTION WAS NULLIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
ON DECEMBER 15, 2010, THE SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION ISSUED A RESOLUTION THAT SET ASIDE THE FINAL AND EXECUTORY DECEMBER 4, 2009 DECISION WHICH NULLIFIED THE CA RESOLUTION AND REINSTATED A LONG FINAL AND EXECUTORY AUGUST 13, 1999 RTC AMENDED DECISION. THE DECEMBER 4, 2009 DECISION COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE OUTCOME OF THE THIRD PARTY RENE PASCUAL PETITION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LONG STANDING RULE GOVERNING IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL JUDGMENTS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT AN ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE BY A DIVISION (OF THE SUPREME COURT) CANNOT BE MODIFIED BY ANOTHER DIVISION, EXCEPT IN AN EN BANC RULING.
ON JUNE 22, 2011, THE SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION ISSUED A DECISION THE OUTCOME OF WHICH WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS BLOG.
THE SUPREME COURT WAS EMPHATIC IN SAYING THAT THE CA DECISION/ RESOLUTION WAS NULLIFIED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF AN APPEAL FROM AN RTC JUDGMENT WHICH ALREADY LAPSED INTO FINALITY FOR THE FAILURE OF PARTY, JAIME ROBLES, TO FILE A RECORD ON APPEAL WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD. WE CITE TO IMPRESS WITH MERIT THE SUPREME COURT DESCRIPTION ABOUT A DECISION THAT IS DEVOID OF JURISDICTION IN G.R.No.178842: Rene Imperial and Nidsland Resources Inc. vs. Hon. Edgar Armes et al, January 30, 2017:
"A void judgment is no judgment at all in legal contemplation. In Canero v. University of the Philippines, we held that-
x x x A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. It is not entitled to enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to those who seek to enforce. In other words, a void judgment is regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if there was no judgment. x x x
A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a void judgment. This want of jurisdiction may pertain to lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person of one of the parties."
CLEARLY, IN THE JUNE 22, 2011 SUPREME COURT DECISION, THE ULTIMATE REASON FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE RENE PASCUAL PETITION WAS THE LONG-STANDING RULE GOVERNING THE IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL JUDGMENTS. THE SUPREME COURT HAD THIS FINAL SAY BEFORE ORDERING THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE:
THE SUPREME COURT SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION DISPOSITIVELY FINISHED THE DECISION WITH A CLEAR STATEMENT IN ORDERING THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BY DECLARING THUS, AND WHICH WE FEEL SHOULD BE CORRECTLY STATED IN THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT TO CONVEY THE COMPLETE ESSENCE OF THE DECISION:
x x x "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. x x x
The only exceptions to the rule of 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. x x x
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.
THE SUPREME COURT SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION DISPOSITIVELY FINISHED THE DECISION WITH A CLEAR STATEMENT IN ORDERING THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BY DECLARING THUS, AND WHICH WE FEEL SHOULD BE CORRECTLY STATED IN THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT TO CONVEY THE COMPLETE ESSENCE OF THE DECISION:
"CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, the Court no longer finds it necessary to address the issues raised by the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. "
x x x
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. "
x x x
THE SUPREME COURT, IN THE JUNE 22, 2011 DECISION, CLEARLY IDENTIFIED THAT THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE INSTANT CASE (SPEC. PROC. NO.IR-1110) FALLS UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF IMMUTABILITY ENUMERATED, AND CLEARLY WAS THE IMMUTABLE AND UNALTERABLE JUDGMENT. THAT, UNLIKE THE AUGUST 13, 1999 RTC AMENDED DECISION, THE APRIL 16, 2002 CA RESOLUTION LACKED JURISDICTION, AND WAS THE ONE NULLIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT - THEREFORE,WAS A VOID JUDGMENT, AND DID NOT ATTAIN FINALITY AND THUS, NEVER BECAME IMMUTABLE. NO LESS THAN THE SUPREME COURT DECLARED THAT THE COURTS - RTC, CA AND SUPREME COURT - ARE PRECLUDED FROM MODIFYING AN IMMUTABLE JUDGMENT. WE NOW ATTACH PROOF THAT RTC BRANCH 34, IRIGA CITY HAD INDEED RECEIVED TRANSMITTAL OF THE JUNE 22, 2011 SUPREME COURT DECISION TOGETHER WITH THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND AS PROOF, ATTACHED HEREWITH IS THE REGISTERED MAIL TRANSMITTAL OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CLERK OF COURT TO THE RTC BRANCH 34, IRIGA CITY, AND TOGETHER WITH IT A PRINTOUT OF THE REGISTERED MAIL INFORMATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS:
THE SEPTEMBER 2018 CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT OF RTC BRANCH 34, IRIGA CITY WITHOUT FIRST GOING OVER THE RECORDS IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ALREADY FINAL AND DECLARED IMMUTABLE AMENDED DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE ESTATE HEIRS. WORST, THIS WAS ATTEMPTED TO BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN SEVERAL CASES AGAINST THE ESTATE BUT MISERABLY FAILED AS THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS WERE ALREADY PUBLISHED AND USED AS JURISPRUDENCE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL OTHER CASES. THIS CLEARLY PUTS TO QUESTION THE ULTERIOR MOTIVES OF THE RESPONSIBLE PREVIOUS AND PRESENT COURT OFFICERS OF THE COURT OF ORIGIN. WE DO NOT INTENT TO MAKE CONCLUSIONS IN THIS BLOG, BUT ONLY TO ENLIGHTEN.
.tif)
No comments:
Post a Comment