ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
June-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 125297 June 6, 2003 - ELVIRA YU OH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143675 June 9, 2003 - SPS. ROMEO and EMILY GUDA v. ALAN A. LEYNES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145338 June 9, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY P. LABIANO

  • A.C. No. 4738 June 10, 2003 - VIOLETA FLORES ALITAGTAG v. VIRGILIO R. GARCIA

  • Bar Matter No. 1036 June 10, 2003 - DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE v. EDWIN L. RANA

  • A.M. No. 99-6-81-MTCC June 10, 2003 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MTCC OF PALAYAN CITY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1203 June 10, 2003 - NELIA A. ZIGA v. RAMON A. AREJOLA

  • A.M. No. P-96-1214 June 10, 2003 - BERNARDINO M. FABIAN, ET AL. v. LEILA (LAILA) M. GALO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1751 June 10, 2003 - ANDREA D. DOMINGO v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

  • G.R. No. 111159 June 10, 2003 - NORDIC ASIA LIMITED, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116463 June 10, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. thru the DPWH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119293 June 10, 2003 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123054 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO B. OBEDO

  • G.R. No. 125778 June 10, 2003 - INTER-ASIA INVESTMENTS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125838 June 10, 2003 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126281 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO A. CARATAO

  • G.R. No. 131842 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO JACKSON

  • G.R. No. 139561 June 10, 2003 - SPS. FEDERICO & SARAH ATUEL, ET AL. v. SPS. BERNABE & CONCHITA VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 141115 June 10, 2003 - POSADAS-MOYA and ASSOC. CONST. CO. v. GREENFIELD DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 142467 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO DE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143076 June 10, 2003 - PHILIPPINE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. SECRETARY, DILG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143125 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL .vs. DIOSDADO R. CORIAL

  • G.R. No. 144157 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOWELL SALUDES

  • G.R. Nos. 144523-26 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO QUIJANO SR.

  • G.R. Nos. 145452-53 June 10, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY CARITATIVO

  • G.R. Nos. 146749 & 147938 June 10, 2003 - CHINA BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 149154 June 10, 2003 - RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 150611 June 10, 2003 - JACINTO SAGUID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 153660 June 10, 2003 - PRUDENCIO BANTOLINO, ET AL. v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1724 June 12, 2003 - RODOLFO O. MACACHOR v. ROLINDO D. BELDIA JR.

  • G.R. No. 138541 June 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LARRY COLONIA

  • G.R. No. 148327 June 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO P. DESALISA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1679 June 16, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. BEL EDUARDO F. NITAFAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. SCC-03-08 June 16, 2003 - ERMELYN A. LIMBONA v. CASAN ALI LIMBONA

  • G.R. No. 95901 June 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO B. SIBONGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138692 June 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR AREO

  • G.R. Nos. 141280-81 June 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY L. SODSOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144589 June 16, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO PACUANCUAN

  • G.R. No. 149683 June 16, 2003 - ILOILO TRADERS FINANCE INC. v. HEIRS OF OSCAR SORIANO JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149750 June 16, 2003 - AURORA ALCANTARA-DAUS v. SPS. HERMOSO & SOCORRO DE LEON

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1106 June 17, 2003 - CELESTINA B. CORPUZ v. ORLANDO ANA F. SIAPNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1710 June 17, 2003 - EVANGELINA C. SAMSON v. JULES A. MEDIA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1784 June 17, 2003 - MANUEL M. ROSALES v. ROMULO S.G. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123146 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALONA BULI-E, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128225 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE A. NARRA

  • G.R. No. 137042 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE MUSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144225 June 17, 2003 - SPS. GODOFREDO and CARMEN ALFREDO v. SPS. ARMANDO and ADELIA BORRAS

  • G.R. No. 145993 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO I. MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 148668 June 17, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TONY L. PEDRONAN

  • G.R. No. 151440 June 17, 2003 - HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO SANTIAGO v. HEIRS OF MARIANO E. SANTIAGO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1493 June 18, 2003 - RENE BOY GOMEZ v. MANUEL D. PATALINGHUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123161 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO SOLAMILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125305 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE MONTEMAYOR

  • G.R. Nos. 127756-58 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. MEDINA SR.

  • G.R. Nos. 131926 & 138991 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL U. PAGALASAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134981 June 18, 2003 - FREDELITO P. VITTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135857 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIANO ARCA

  • G.R. Nos. 140439-40 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX HERMOSA

  • G.R. No. 144975 June 18, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR SAPIGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149147 June 18, 2003 - FELIX BAROT v. COMELEC CITY BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF TANJAY CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150327 June 18, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARILYN A. PERALTA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 01-6-314-RTC June 19, 2003 - RE: REQUEST OF JUDGE ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA, RTC-BR. 59, SAN CARLOS CITY

  • A.M. No. MTJ-92-710 June 19, 2003 - PEDRITA M. HARAYO v. JUDGE MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES

  • G.R. No. 154411 June 19, 2003 - NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1701 June 20, 2003 - BALTAZAR LL. FIRMALO v. MELINDA C. QUIERREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1594 June 20, 2003 - PASTOR SALUD v. FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES

  • G.R. No. 122766 June 20, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ESPONILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127275 June 20, 2003 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130759 June 20, 2003 - ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CONCEPTS TRADING CORP.

  • G.R. No. 139332 June 20, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. NOLI A. NOVIO

  • G.R. No. 140698 June 20, 2003 - ROGELIO ENGADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142503 June 20, 2003 - ROMUALDO C. PEREZ v. APOLONIO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 142820 June 20, 2003 - WOLFGANG O. ROEHR v. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143604 June 20, 2003 - PRISCO LANZADERAS, ET AL. v. AMETHYST SECURITY AND GENERAL SERVICES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146595 June 20, 2003 - CARLO A. TAN v. KAAKBAY FINANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152436 June 20, 2003 - NPC v. SPS. IGMEDIO CHIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152766 June 20, 2003 - LILIA SANCHEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140872 June 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO T. INGGO

  • G.R. Nos. 142683-84 June 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO JOROLAN

  • G.R. Nos. 143760-63 June 23, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO B. MANLUCTAO

  • G.R. No. 144018 June 23, 2003 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. v. TOMAS TOH, SR., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3849 June 25, 2003 - FELICIDAD VDA. DE BERNARDO v. JOSE R. RESTAURO

  • G.R. Nos. 105416-17, 111863 & 143715 June 25, 2003 - PHILIPP BROTHERS OCEANIC, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122109 June 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS TORIO

  • G.R. No. 123896 June 25, 2003 - ROSALINDA SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126113 June 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO B. GUIHAMA

  • G.R. No. 135323 June 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDELMA LAGATA

  • G.R. No. 136773 June 25, 2003 - MILAGROS MANONGSONG v. FELOMENA JUMAQUIO ESTIMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146018 June 25, 2003 - EDGAR COKALIONG SHIPPING LINES v. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. Nos. 147589 & 147613 June 25, 2003 - ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1472 June 26, 2003 - ADRIANO V. ALBIOR v. DONATO A. AUGUIS

  • A.M. No. P-02-1544 June 26, 2003 - ERNESTO LUMANTA v. WILFREDO M. TUPAS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1670 June 26, 2003 - SPS. CAROLINA AND VILLAMOR GRAGERA v. PABLO B. FRANCISCO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1736 June 26, 2003 - SPS. ARTURO and JOSEFINA DE GUZMAN v. FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519 June 26, 2003 - GREGORIO LIMPOT LUMAPAS v. CAMILO E. TAMIN

  • G.R. No. 137296 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO Q. VICENTE

  • G.R. No. 140967 June 26, 2003 - EMERITA ACOSTA v. EMILIO ENRIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 141863 June 26, 2003 - BASILIO RIVERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144090 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL S. MAGUING

  • G.R. No. 145305 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REDANTE C. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 145731 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO GERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148730 June 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE D. DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154705 June 26, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, ET AL. v. JAMES VINZON

  • G.R. No. 121828 June 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE GAYOT PILOLA

  • G.R. Nos. 124830-31 June 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO P. EVINA

  • G.R. No. 138993 June 27, 2003 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 139217–24 June 27, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELSON ESPERANZA

  • G.R. No. 143643 June 27, 2003 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. SPS. JOSE & MA. CLARA CAMPOS

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 138993   June 27, 2003 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 138993. June 27, 2003.]

    PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, Petitioner, v. HON. SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA & SOLID HOMES, INC., Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    CALLEJO, SR., J.:


    Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, for the nullification of the Order, dated May 6, 1999, of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 68 in Civil Case No. 62560 clarifying and declaring that the rate of interest of the amount of P28,937,965.65, adjudged by the said court in favor of the petitioner Philippine Veterans Bank under its Resolution (Summary Judgment) dated February 22, 1994, 1 was 8% per annum instead of 18% as appearing in the decretal portion of the original copy of the said resolution appended to the original records of the case.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The case at bar stemmed from the following antecedents:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On November 5, 1992, Solid Homes, Inc. (SHI) filed a complaint for specific performance, sum of money and damages against Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, raffled to Branch 68 thereof and docketed as Civil Case No. 62560. SHI alleged, inter alia, that while it had remitted to PVB the amount of P28,937,965.65 in compliance with their Compromise Agreement executed on April 3, 1992, PVB reneged on its obligations thereunder. SHI prayed that after due proceedings judgment be rendered in its favor, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    PRAYER

    WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that, after trial, judgment be rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Ordering the Defendant to release to the Plaintiff all the Condominium Certificates of Title (CCT’S) covering the disputed properties and declaring that the next installment shall be due only after said release.

    2. Declaring the Plaintiff to have fully and completely complied with the terms of the Compromise Agreement.

    3. Ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    a. The amount not less than One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as actual damages;

    b. The amount of not less than One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as damage to its goodwill and business reputation

    c. The amount of not less than One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos as exemplary damages;

    d. The amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00) as and for attorney’s fees; and

    e. The Costs of suit.

    Plaintiff prays for such other and further reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable in the premises. 2

    In its answer to the complaint, PVB prayed that the Compromise Agreement be rescinded and that SHI be ordered to receive the amount of P28,937,965.65 it had previously remitted to PVB and to pay actual and compensatory damages. 3 SHI filed a motion for summary judgment. For its part, PVB filed a motion to dismiss the case. On February 22, 1994, the trial court issued a resolution denying PVB’s motion to dismiss and granting SHI’s motion for summary judgment. The decretal portion of the original copy of the resolution appended to the original record reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, and finding the "Motion for Summary Judgment" to be tenable, the Court hereby GRANTS the same. Judgment is hereby rendered directing the defendant to release and deliver to plaintiff 2,850 square meters of condominium units which is equivalent of the payment effected by plaintiff to defendant in the amount of P28,937,965.95 (sic) computed as P10,871.58 per square meter with legal interest thereon.

    The plaintiff is however directed to pay the remaining balance of P28,937,965.95 (sic) in six (6) equal quarterly installments, the first installment shall start WITHIN 30 DAYS from finality of this decision/resolution and the succeeding installments to be paid within the first five (5) days of the month of the succeeding quarter thereafter plus 18% interest thereon per annum from this date.

    SO ORDERED. 4

    However, in the copies of the resolution served on the parties, the rate of interest on the amount of P28,937,965.65 was pegged at 8%. PVB filed a motion for the reconsideration of the said resolution but the trial court issued an order on July 27, 1994, denying the said motion. Instead of appealing to the Court of Appeals (CA), PVB filed a petition for certiorari with this Court docketed as G.R. No. 115847 for the nullification of the resolution of the trial court. In its petition, PVB alleged, inter alia, that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it pegged the rate of interest on the amount of P28,937,965.65 at 8% per annum. 5 The Court referred the petition to the CA for resolution. On March 11, 1996, the CA promulgated its decision dismissing the petition. PVB then filed a petition with this Court for the reversal of the decision of the CA, but this Court, in the Resolution of August 28, 1996, denied the said petition on the ground that it was filed out of time. The aforesaid resolution became final and executory.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw library

    On March 31, 1999, SHI filed a Motion for Clarification; for Entry; and for Issuance of Notice of Judgment. SHI alleged, inter alia, in its motion that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (b) That the text of the RTC Resolution in the original records in this case, had been altered by adding in handwriting the figure "1" preceding the figure "8%", making the interest rate therein appear to be "18%" instead of "8%", manifestly surreptitiously, considering that said alteration was made after the copies had been released to the parties and without any reason on record at all for such alteration. 6

    PVB filed its opposition thereto alleging, inter alia, that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    2. The interest of 18% should prevail over the 8% interest posited by the movant, not only because the records of this case elevated on appeal actually sustain this rate but also because, of which is more paramount, the rate of 18% conforms to the true intention and agreement of the parties;

    3. Plaintiff should not be permitted to understate its obligations with PVB by hiding behind the alleged alteration of the figure in the rate of interest fixed by the Honorable Court; 7

    On May 6, 1999, the trial court issued the assailed order granting the motion of SHI, the pertinent portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court resolves to:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) CLARIFY and DECLARE that the interest rate for the payment of the judgment debt of P28,937,965.65 by plaintiff to defendant is pegged at 8% per annum;

    (2) DIRECT the Entry of Judgment into the Book of Entries; and

    (3) DIRECT the Branch Clerk of Court to issue the corresponding NOTICE to both parties that the records have been returned to this Court.

    SO ORDERED. 8

    PVB received a copy of the aforesaid order on May 7, 1999. On July 2, 1999, PVB filed the petition at bar contending that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That Respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ordering the fixing of the rate of interest over the judgment debt to only eight (8%) percent, when the papers, documents and pleadings before him fixed the interest rate to eighteen (18%) percent. 9

    The petitioner avers that the 18% rate of interest as appearing in the original copy of the resolution of the trial court is correct, as it is prescribed in the Compromise Agreement of the parties. On the other hand, if the trial court fixed 8% per annum as the rate of interest on the outstanding balance of P28,937,965.65, then the said rate of interest is null and void. The assailed order of the trial court is clear proof of its bias in favor of SHI. In its opposition to the petition, SHI posits the view that the petition at bar is a blatant attempt by the petitioner at resurrecting an issue it had previously raised: an issue already resolved by the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 36500 and the review of which was denied by this Court per its Resolution of August 28, 1996. The trial court had no jurisdiction to modify or alter its February 22, 1994 Resolution which had long become final and executory. The respondent asserts that the only issue in its motion for clarification filed with the RTC was whether the interest rate fixed by the said court in its February 22, 1994 Resolution was 8% per annum, as appearing in the copies of the resolution served on the parties, or 18% per annum, as appearing in the decretal portion of the original copy of the same resolution, appended to the original records.

    The petition is bereft of merit.

    It is a fundamental rule that when a final judgment becomes executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by this Court. The only recognized exceptions are the correction of clerical errors or the making of so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and, of course where the judgment is void. 10

    In this case, the Resolution of February 22, 1994, rendered by the respondent judge, had long become final and executory after it was affirmed by the CA and the review of which was denied by this Court in its Resolution dated August 28, 1996, in G.R. No. 125418. Thus, the said resolution can no longer be modified or amended by a petition for a cert writ regardless of whether the respondent judge committed any error in prescribing an interest rate, as the petitioner claims. 11

    The respondent judge certainly committed no grave abuse of discretion in clarifying that the interest rate prescribed in the Resolution of February 22, 1994 was 8% per annum. The assailed order was necessitated by the fact that, as explained by the respondent judge, there was an unauthorized alteration of the copy of the same resolution in the original records with the court a quo:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Foremost, what should be determined is the rate of interest which is reflected in the dispositive portion of the Decision. As can be seen from the original copy of the said Decision, the figure "1" was inserted before the typewritten figure "8" to make it appear that the rate of interest should be 18% instead of 8%. In the considered opinion of the Court, the interest rate should be pegged at 8% and not 18%. The alteration made on the original copy of the Decision was not sanctioned by the Court, for, obviously, if it was so, the Presiding Judge’s signature or initial should have been affixed, it being a substantial change or amendment. In this connection, it is worthy to state that in cases like this, the Presiding Judge always affixes his initials on any change or alteration made. Two, the alteration would have been made to reflect on all copies of the Decision including those sent to the parties. This being not so, the alteration was presumably made AFTER copies of the Decision was released to the parties. Indeed, the fact that the Court decreed the said rate of 8% was admitted by defendant [herein petitioner] in its "Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of TRO and/or Injunction" filed before the Supreme Court (page 279, Records). As the Decision of the Court has become final and executory, it can no longer be disturbed. 12

    Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the interest rate was not fixed by the respondent judge only in the assailed order; the interest rate was already prescribed in his February 22, 1994 Resolution which had long become final and executory. The petitioner cannot now feign ignorance of the interest rate prescribed therein because in its petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 115847 before this Court assailing the same February 22, 1994 Resolution, the petitioner declared that the rate of interest fixed by the trial court in its February 22, 1994 resolution was 8% per annum, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (c) The penult of his judgment states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The plaintiff is however directed to pay the remaining balance of P28,937,965.95 (sic) in six (6) equal quarterly installments, the first installment shall start WITHIN 30 DAYS from finality of this decision/resolution and the succeeding installments to be paid within the first five (5) days of the month of the succeeding quarter thereafter plus 8% interest thereon per annum from this date. (Annex H)."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Under the Compromise Agreement of the parties, the balance of P28,937,965.95 (sic) shall be paid in SIX equal monthly installments. The first installment shall be paid within thirty days from date of the payment of P17,362,779.55 and the succeeding installments shall be payable within the first five (5) days of every month thereafter.

    The judgment of the Respondent Judge extends the payment of the balance for ONE (1) WHOLE YEAR more than what was stipulated in the contract.

    Again, the Respondent Judge failed to give the factual and legal justification for his judgment as required by no less than our Constitution.

    Worse, the Respondent Judge ordained payment of interest at EIGHT (8%) per cent less than what was stipulated in the parties’ contract, without any factual and legal justification. Again, a constitutional violation.

    Verily, from all the foregoing discussion, the questioned Resolutions of the Respondent Judge suffers from the infirmities of having been issued/rendered with grave abuse of his discretion or in excess of his jurisdiction. Being a patent nullity is like — "A DEAD LIMB ON THE JUDICIAL THREE (sic) WHICH SHOULD BE LOPPED OFF AND WHOLLY DISREGARDED." (ANURAN v. AQUINO, 38 Phil. 29) 13

    The said petition was remanded by this Court to the CA, and docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 36500.

    It bears stressing that the assailed Order dated May 6, 1999, did not amend or modify the Resolution of February 22, 1994, which had become final and executory. The assailed order merely clarified the interest rate prescribed in the earlier Resolution, which disposed of the case on the merits, to rectify a falsification of the copy of the said resolution appended to the original records. In the exercise of its supervisory powers over the execution of a final and executory judgment, special circumstances attending its execution impelled the trial court to issue the assailed order 14 clarifying the interest rate prescribed in the February 22, 1994 Resolution.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. With costs against the petitioner.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.

    Austria-Martinez, J., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Judge Santiago G. Estrella.

    2. Rollo, p. 35.

    3. Id., at 69.

    4. Id., at 131. (Italics ours)

    5. Id., at 150–151.

    6. Id., at 175.

    7. Id., at 178–179.

    8. Id., at 22–23. (Italics ours)

    9. Id., at 9.

    10. Arcenas v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 733 (1998).

    11. Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC, 171 SCRA 415 (1989).

    12. Rollo, p. 22.

    13. Id., at 150–151. (Emphasis ours)

    14. Santos v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 340 SCRA 59 (2000).

    G.R. No. 138993   June 27, 2003 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED