ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.M. No. MTJ-02-1447. February 9, 2004]

FERIA vs. LEOMO

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated FEB 9 2004 .

A.M. No. MTJ-02-1447 (Trifon Feria vs. Judge Lavezares C. Leomo.)

This is an administrative complaint filed by Trifon Feria against Judge Lavezares C. Leomo of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Felipe, Zambales, for ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority relative to Civil Case No. 427 entitled "Trifon Feria vs. Rizalina Baguilat" for forcible entry, preliminary mandatory injunction and damages.

The facts follow.

On January 26, 1999, complainant Feria filed a complaint for ejectment against Rizalina Baguilat before the MTC of San Felipe, Zambales.

In a decision dated July 27, 2000, respondent Judge Leomo dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was filed prematurely in the MTC without passing through the Lupon Tagapamayapa (Lupon).Nevertheless, Judge Leomo ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff (herein complainant Feria) the amount of P20,000 as attorney's fees, P5,000 as litigation expenses and P20,000 as exemplary damages:

WHEREFORE, let this case be DISMISSED further requiring the defendant to pay the amount of P20,000 as attorney's fees, P5,000 litigation expenses and to pay the plaintiff the amount of P20,000 as exemplary damages.

Neither party appealed the decision, hence the same became final and executory. Thereafter complainant Feria filed a motion for execution but he was informed that respondent judge would be issuing a new order.

On September 14, 2000, complainant received an order dated September 8, 2000 altering the dispositive portion of the July 27, 2000 decision so as to change the word "defendant" in the dispositive portion to "plaintiff, and vice-versa.

Complainant now asserts that respondent judge erred in issuing the aforesaid order considering that the latter already lost jurisdiction over the case after the decision became final. Moreover, he contends that the dismissal of the case based on premature filing (without passing the Lupon) was erroneous because, as alleged in his complaint, the parties resided in different municipalities, hence exempt from the requirement of prior conciliation before the Lupon.

In his Comment, respondent judge claims that:

a.he acted in good faith when he issued the order correcting the dispositive portion of his decision;

b.the court still ha(d) jurisdiction over the case inasmuch as there (was) no entry of judgment or final order which determine (d) the date of the finality of the judgment. In fact, complainant filed on September 27, 2000, a notice of appeal before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on the ground that the decision was contrary to law and jurisprudence;

c.the alteration was made in order to conform to the evidence presented by the parties and to rectify an error committed by the court's typist.

Upon referral of the case for evaluation, report and recommendation, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended, among others, that respondent judge be ordered to pay a fine of P20,000 with a stern warning that a similar act would be dealt with more severely.

In our resolution dated July 17, 2002, the case was ordered re-docketed as a regular administrative matter.

The Court disagrees with the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.

The decision dated July 27, 2000 of the court a quo in Civil Case No. 427 (ejectment) was not appealed by the parties within fifteen days from receipt. Their failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law rendered the decision final.

It is well-settled that judgments or orders become final and executory by operation of law and not by judicial declaration. Thus, finality of judgment becomes an established fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal, if no appeal is perfected or motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed. The trial court need not even pronounce the finality of the order as the same becomes final by operation of law. [1] cralaw Thus, once a decision becomes final, even the court that rendered it can no longer alter or modify it, except to correct clerical errors or mistakes. [2] cralaw Likewise, any amendment or alteration made which substantially affects the final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose. [3] cralaw

In Llanes & Company vs. Bocar, [4] cralaw we distinguished judicial error from clerical error:

The test to determine "whether an error in a judgment is a judicial one, not open to correction on motion in the court which made it, or a mere clerical one, which may be corrected any time on application in the court where it occurred, is whether the mistake relates to something the court did not consider and pass on, or considered and erroneously decided, or whether there was a failure to preserve or correctly represent in the record, in all respects, the actual decision of the court." (Bostwick v. Van Vleck, 106 Wis. 387, 82 N.W. 302; 67 A.L.R. 826, 842; 126 A.L.R. 956, 977). The phrase "clerical error" has been employed in a broad sense to cover all errors, mistakes, or omissions which are not the result of the exercise of the judicial function. (Hubbard v. Hubbard, 213 Or. 482, 324 P. 2d 469, cited in 46 Am. Jur. 2d 446). The "power to correct clerical errors in judgments, orders or decrees, does not authorize the addition of terms never adjudged, or the entry of orders never made, although the court should have made such additions or entered such orders, ,and any error in that regard is a judicial error." (126 A.L.R., 978, 979, italics supplied).

Thus, in Rebuldela vs. IAC, [5] cralaw we held that the interchange of the words "mortgagor" and "mortgagee" was merely a clerical error:

Petitioners assert that the trial court gravely abused its discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, when it amended its Decision of October 22, 1982 ex parte, and in so doing, they were not given their day in court; and that the then Intermediate Appellate Court erred or gravely abused its discretion when it did not only affirm the decision of the trial court, but argued in favor of the respondents that the trial court has the right to change its decision ex parte because there was merely a typographical error which is not supported by facts and the law.

Such assertion is untenable. The court has inherent power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice (Par. g, Section 5, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court), and when it finds that the ends of justice would be better served, the court may disregard technicalities and amend its order or process that has not become final (Manuel v. Manuel, 2 SCRA 155; Austria v. Reyes, 31 SCRA 754; and Villanueva v. CFI of Oriental Mindoro, 119 SCRA 288). And even if the decision has become final, it is already settled that clerical errors or mistakes or omissions plainly due to inadvertence or negligence may be corrected or supplied after the judgment has been entered (Ang Lin Chi v. Castelo, 83 Phil. 262). In the case at bar it will be observed that the trial court, as prayed for, corrected the dispositive portion as to the designation of the parties therein to make it conform with the body of the decision, which was not yet final.

Such correction obviously made to rectify clerical errors, which interchanged the mortgagors and the mortgagee is beyond dispute within the power of the court in accordance with the established jurisprudence above cited.

Likewise, in the case of Municipality of Antipolo vs. Zapanta, [6] cralaw we ruled that the changing of the phrase "heirs of Isabela Avenda�o" to "heirs of Joaquin Avenda�o" in the dispositive portion of its decision was a mere clerical error:

Acting on the Motion for Clarification of paragraph (3) of the Decision of December 26, 1984, filed by petitioner Municipality of Antipolo on September 16, 1986, the Opposition thereto filed by private respondent Aurelia L. Lavilla, the Comment of the Solicitor General, and the Rejoinder thereto by the same private respondent, the Court RESOLVED, inasmuch as what is involved is a mere clerical error, to CORRECT paragraph (3) of the dispositive portion of its Decision of December 26, 1984, to read Heirs of Joaquin Avenda�o instead of Heirs of Isabela Avenda�o.

According to the order correcting the decision, the judge committed glaring error in stating that the plaintiff, instead of defendant, was entitled to damages. Respondent really intended to award damages to defendant. It was therefore logical to change "defendant" to "plaintiff in the dispositive portion of the decision as it was a clerical error which could be corrected anytime even after the finality of judgment. The order correcting the dispositive portion of the decision stated:

Glaring is the error made by this Court in the dispositive portion of the decision in the above-entitled case instead of the word "Defendant" the same be changed to "Plaintiff and the word "Plaintiff" on the last sentence be changed to "Defendant".

"WHEREFORE, the dispositive portion of the decision of this Court dated July 27, 2000 should appear, to wit:

"WHEREFORE, let this case be DISMISSED further requiring the plaintiff to pay the amount of P20,000.00 as Attorney's Fee, P5,000.00 litigation expenses and to pay the defendant the amount of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages." [7] cralaw

The "Motion for Execution" filed by the plaintiff thru counsel is therefore DENIED.

Furnish this Order to the parties.

SO ORDERED.

After the order dated September 8, 2000 correcting the dispositive portion of the decision was received by the complainant on September 14, 2000, he promptly filed his notice of appeal on the ground that the order was contrary to law and jurisprudence.

While complainant alleged that there was no need for them to submit their dispute to the Lupon as they did not reside in the same municipality, the respondent judge arrived at a different finding, thus:

After both parties have presented their respective evidences and Position Papers, this Court is constrained to dismiss this case for lack of merit. Without touching the substances of their claims and defenses, this Court finds this case as prematurely filed for failure to comply with the requirement of Pres. Decree No. 1508 as amended by the Local Government Code. Since both parties are residents of San Felipe, Zambales, and the properties in question are also situated in the same municipality, the provision of P.D. 1508 applies. [8] cralaw

A judge enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official functions. The findings of the trial judge are not manifestations of bias or partiality but are the result of observations by the judge that he properly took into account in the rendition of judgment. [9] cralaw

In view of the foregoing, we find that respondent judge was correct in dismissing the ejectment complaint for being prematurely filed, as well as in correcting the entry in the dispositive portion of the decision. The perceived error committed by respondent in awarding damages allegedly without legal basis, if at all, merely amounted to an error of judgment in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Such an error did not make the court's decision void and could serve only as a ground for reversal if it could be shown that prejudice was caused by it. An error of judgment can be reviewed only by an appeal. [10] cralaw Well-settled is the rule that, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, erroneous acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action for no magistrate is infallible. [11] cralaw In the present case, complainant failed to show bad faith or malice on the part of respondent judge.

We take note that this is not respondent's first administrative case. In A.M. No. MTJ-00-1315, respondent was reprimanded by this Court. In another administrative case, docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-03-1492 (promulgated August 26, 2003), the Court en banc found him guilty of gross misconduct for violating Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court ordered his dismissal from the service and the forfeiture of his retirement benefits. Thus the present case is moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, the complaint filed by Trifon Feria against Judge Lavezares C. Leomo of the Municipal Trial Court of San Felipe, Zambales for ignorance of the law, is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and for being moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Testate Estate of Maria Manuel Vda. de Biascan vs. Biascan, 347 SCRA 621, 630 [2000].

[2] cralaw Jose Clavano, Inc. vs. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, G.R. No. 143781, February 27, 2002.

[3] cralaw SGMC Realty Corp vs. Office of the President, 339 SCRA 275, 280 [2000].

[4] cralaw 69 SCRA 319, 324 [1976].

[5] cralaw 155 SCRA 520,526-527 [1987].

[6] cralaw 146 SCRA 345, 346 [1986].

[7] cralaw Exhibit "D".

[8] cralaw Exhibit "B".

[9] cralaw People vs. dela Cruz, 383 SCRA 250, 260 [2002], citing People vs. Belaro 307 SCRA 591, 600 [1999].

[10] cralaw Jaro vs. Court of Appeals, 377 SCRA 282, 293 [2002].

[11] cralaw Martin vs. Guerrero, 317 SCRA 166, 174 [1999], citing Alvarado vs. Laguindanum, 245 SCRA 501, 504 [1995], Galan Realty Co., Inc. vs. Arranz, 237 SCRA 770, 776 [1994].


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com