Spouses Jorge Navarra vs Lionson

GR 217930

Facts

 Sep 23, 1993, Joe lionson, husband of Yolanda, filed a complaint for damages based on a
malicious prosecution against Spouses Navarra and Spouses Bernardo before RTC Las Pinas.
During the Trial, the parties were able to complete their presentation of evidence. But before
the case was finished, Jose died.
Consequently on Jan 4, 2001, Atty Aguas, counsel of Jose, filed a motion for time for time to
submit a motion for substitution pending receipt of the death certification. The motion for
extension was denied and hence the motion for substitution was likewise denied.
 Eventually, on May 2, 2001 the court rendered a decision in favour of jose ordering Defendant
spouses to pay P500k for moral dmgs, etc. to the spouses.
 Jul 13, 2001, defendant spouses filed their Motion for declaration of nullity of the decision
based on the absence of a valid substitution of Jose. On the other hand, Atty Aguas filed another
motion for substitution but it was still denied.
The RTC decision became Final and executory on Dec 2, 2001.
 On May 13, 2002, the RTC denied the motion for declaration of nullity.
Undaunted, defendant spouses appealed to CA but CA dismissed their petition.
Thus on Aug 30,2004 an entry of judgment was issued and thereafter Atty Aguas filed a motion
for execution.
 But defendants remain undaunted. It opposed the motion for execution on the ground that no
valid substitution has been made.
Consequently, CA issued another order wherein it was deemed that the motion for execution
was withdrawn
To settle the issue on substitution, Atty Aguas filed a PLEADING(hindi Motion) denominated as
Motion to Resolve Motion for Substitution of Parties. Obviously the motion was denied by the
for lack of merit.
 In the meantime, Yolanda filed a petition for issuance of letters of administration of the estate
of her deceased husband before the RTC of Paranaque. It was granted and Yolanda was
appointed as administratix.
Armed with the RTC Parnaque decision, Yolanda filed a motion for execution before the RTC Las
Pinas. It was still denied.
Undeterred, she filed another motion to substitute the plaintiff, this time with RTC Paranaque.
Finally, it was granted.
However, defendant spouses opposed the motion and filed a petition for certiorari before the
CA praying that the issue of substitution had already been ruled upon and dismissed by the RTC
3 times. Hence, RTC Paranaque should not have granted it.

 In the meantime, Yolanda filed a motion for Execution of judgment. It was also finally granted.
 The spouses again YET AGAIN opposed the motion for execution, and filed a motion to recall or
hold in abeyance the implementation of the writ of execution.
They also filed another petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA which was raffled to
another CA division. They claimed that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it allowed the
substitution.
Ruling of CA
 On the first petition for certiorari, CA dismissed the petition. According to the CA, the only
purpose of the substitution was to afford due process to the parties. Since both of them were
able to present their evidence, no one was denied due process. Hence, the substitution was in
order.
 On the second petition for certiorari, CA reversed and set aside the RTC order granting the
execution holding that the complaint for damages was purely personal and it did not survive
Jose’s death.
Thus on Jan 6, 2012, the CA decision became final and executory and the entry of judgment was
issued.
 2 year later, on Dec 16, 2013, Yolanda filed her urgent Omnibus Motion praying for the lifting of
the CA entry of judgment. Yolanda claims that she was unaware of the petition for certiorari
filed before the CA because her counsel had not informed her.
CA granted the motion and consequently amended their decision. It ruled that the death of Jose
did not extinguish the action for damages. In the interest of substantial justice, it set aside the
entry of judgment.
 The spouses filed a petition for certiorari before the SC

Issue

 Whether CA erred in amending its decision in violation of the principle of finality of judgment
and its immutability.

Ruling

 Answer
- No
Legal Basis
- Under the Principle of Finality of Judgment and its immutability, a judgment that has
acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable even if the modification is meant to
correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law.
The purpose of this doctrine is to avoid delay in the administration of justice.
There are however exceptions. It may be relaxed in order to serve the ends of substantial
justice. Amongst the exceptions are:
1. Clerical Errors
2. Nunc Pro Tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party
3. Void judgments
 4. Circumstances after finality of the decision that render its execution unjust and
inequitable
Application
- In this case, the RTC decision had become final and executory on Dec 2, 2001 and the entry
of judgment was issued on Aug 30, 2004 (20 years ago). The controversy only arose as to the
issue of the substitution of Jose. The petitioners effectively assailed the RTC order of
execution in the CA twice. Once with a different division, and the other in another only that
it was in the guise of questioning the order of substitution but in reality, was sought to
question the RTC order of execution.

Conclusion

- It is time to put an end to this litigation as the enforcement of the final judgment has long
been delayed. Thus petitioners, in the interest of justice, petitioners are ordered to respect
and comply with the final and executory judgment of the court.