Juanito Cardoza v. Hon. Pablo S. Singson, et al., G.R. No.

L-59284, January 12, 1990

Second Division, Justice Paras
Judgment nunc pro tunc

FACTS: Sometime in 1979, a Motion for Execution of Judgment in Civil Case No. 1853 was
filed by Atty. Adelino B. Sitoy. Said motion alleged that a Decision dated February 7, 1938 was
issued by the CFI-Maasin, Leyte which was affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals
in C.A. G.R. No. 3545 promulgated on December 6, 1939. This has long been became final and
executory.

However, plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1853 acquired knowledge of the appellate court’s decision
only in November 11, 1974 because they were not informed of such decision with the untimely
demise of their former counsel. Attached to said motion for execution were certification from the
Clerk of Court of CFI-Southern Leyte interposing that their record does not show that the
plaintiff’s and defendant’s counsel was not furnished copy of the said Decision. Also attached is
a certification of the Clerk of Court of the CA stating that the record of C.A. G.R. No. 3545 was
burnt during the liberation of Manila in 1945.

Thereafter, the trial court directed the plaintiffs and the defendants to submit their respective
memoranda. Plaintiffs complied but defendants did not submit any nor submitted reply to written
interrogatories.

Later, plaintiff’s counsel moved to defer the consideration of said motion because they
discovered that an entry of judgment had not yet been made and that nobody could tell whether
parties or their counsel received a copy of the decision of the CA. Plaintiffs, thus, prayed for the
recording of the decision of the CA in the book of entries of judgment.

Thereafter, the trial court issued an Order that a ‘nunc pro tunc judgment be entered pursuant to
the decision of the CA in CA GR No. 3545. It also issued a writ of execution.

Thereafter, said writ was enforced and herein petitioner was served copy of the writ. But the
implementation was held in abeyance due to the MoR filed by petitioner’s counsel. However,
later, the trial court reinstated its order and issued an alias writ of execution, it also opined
affirming its power to issue nunc pro tunc judgment.

Thereafter, the Sheriff executed the writ to which the subject property was formally turned over
to the plaintiffs.

Thereafter, petitioner was summoned before the trial court in connection with his harvesting of
coconuts in the subject property and he was ordered to show cause why he should not be held in
contempt.

Hence, petitioner filed this instant petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition with
preliminary injunction. The petition alleged, among others, that respondent judge usurped the
powers of the CA when it directed that a nunc pro tunc judgment be entered pursuant to the CA
decision in CA GR 3545; that such issuance is wrong because of plaintiff’s inaction for the past
40 years.

On the other hand, private respondents, countered among others that the respondent Judge issued
said judgment properly in connection with its exercise of its function as court of law and equity.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion when it made the entry of
judgment nunc pro tunc and issued the writ of execution?

HELD:

“Acting not only as a court of law but also as a court of equity, the trial court correctly made the
entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeals in Civil Case
No. C.A. G.R. No. 3545. In so doing, the lower court merely ordered the judgment of the Court
of Appeals to be executed.”

“The issuance of a nunc pro tunc order was recognized by this Court in Lichauco v. Tan Pho, 51
Phil. 862 where an order or judgment actually rendered by a court at a former time had not been
entered of record as rendered. There is no doubt that such an entry operates to save proceedings
had before it was made.”

“Contrary to what the petitioner claims, the lower courts action – decreeing the entry of a
judgment nunc pro tunc – was not done arbitrarily nor capriciously. The petitioner was allowed
to oppose the motions in open court and was even required to submit a memorandum to support
his position. The petitioner, however, failed to submit a memorandum. Neither did he adduce
sufficient evidence to support his claims over the properties in question.”

“Finally, well settled is the rule that a judgment which has become final and executory can no
longer be amended or corrected by the court except for clerical errors or mistakes. In such a
situation, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case except to execute the final judgment, as in
this case.”

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.