SECOND DIVISION
PHILIPPINE
VETERANS
BANK,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
138993
June 27, 2003
-versus-
HON. SANTIAGO G.
ESTRELLA
AND SOLID HOMES,
INC.,
Respondents.
D E C I S I
O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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.
The case at bar stemmed
from the following antecedents:
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:
P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE,
it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that, after trial,
judgment
be rendered:
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.
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
f.
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:
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.
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:
(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:
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:
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the Court resolves to:
(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:
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 it’s 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.cralaw:red
The petition is bereft
of merit.cralaw:red
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:
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:
(c)
The penult of his judgment states:
"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)."
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
Again, the Respondent
Judge failed to give the factual and legal justification for his
judgment
as required by no less than our Constitution.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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 vs. 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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DISMISSED for lack of merit. With costs against the petitioner.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J., (Chairman),
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 vs. NLRC, 171 SCRA 415 (1989).
[12]
Rollo, p. 22.
[13]
Id., at 150-151. (Underscoring ours)
[14]
Santos vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, 340 SCRA 59 (2000). |