THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 215615, December 09, 2020
LILIA M. TANINGCO, DENNIS M. TANINGCO AND ANDREW M. TANINGCO, Petitioners, v. REYNALDO FERNANDEZ, LOURDES P. SALA, EMMA P. PEREZ, AUGUSTO F. PEREZ, DOMINADOR PEREZ, JOSE F. PEREZ, MILAGROS F. PEREZ, TEODORO F. PEREZ, ADORACION S. PEREZ, JOSEPHINE P. SAN AGUSTIN, ALEX S. PEREZ, ELENIDA I. PEREZ, MICHAEL S. PEREZ, MANUEL L. PEREZ, ALBERTO L. PEREZ, Respondents.**
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari and Prohibition,1 petitioners Lilia M. Taningco, Dennis M. Taningco, and Andrew M. Taningco (petitioners) assail the May 13, 20142 and October 27, 20143 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 105017 which denied their Motion to Set Aside Resolution [Dated November 25, 2013] and Entry of Judgment,4 and their Motion for Reconsideration,5 respectively.
The Factual Antecedents:
Civil Case No. 1674, a Complaint for Quieting of Title and/or Recovery of Possession and Ownership, was resolved by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Kalibo, Aldan in favor of the respondents and against petitioners. The fallo of the Decision6 reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendants Jose Taningco, Harry Taningco and Jose Taningco, Jr. and their privies and successors-in-interest are hereby ordered to vacate the two hundred sixty three (263) square meters of Lot 191-A at G. Ramos St., Poblacion, Kalibo, Aklan and to turn it over to the plaintiffs Reynaldo Fernandez, Lourdes P. Sala, Emma F. Perez, Augusto F. Perez, Dominador F. Perez, Milagros F. Perez, Josephine P. San Agustin, Teodoro F. Perez, Jose F. Perez, Adoracion F. Perez, Elenita L. Perez, Alex S. Perez, Michael S. Perez, Alberto L. Perez and Manuel L. Perez or their successors-in-interest.Petitioners' appeal was denied by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and subsequently by the appellate court whose Decision dated March 29, 20068 became final and executory per the October 8, 2006 Entry of Judgment.9 Thus, respondents moved for issuance of a writ of execution10 which the MTC granted.
SO ORDERED.7
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prayer for writ of preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. And unless parties still have other evidence to present in their main petition for certiorari, they are hereby directed to formally manifest the same within five (5) days from receipt of this order, otherwise the evidence and arguments presented in this incident preliminary injunction are deemed adopted for the main action which is also deemed dismissed.Thereafter, petitioners' motion for the inhibition17 of the RTC presiding judge was also denied.18 Subsequently, in an Order19 dated on January 5, 2010, the RTC denied petitioners' prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO and dismissed the Petition for Certiorari.
SO ORDERED.16
I. Respondent Court of Appeals-Cebu gravely erred in not furnishing petitioners with a copy of the Decision dated February 28, 2013, and in not resolving judiciously the principal issues posed in the petition in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 05017.
II. Respondent Court of Appeals-Cebu gravely erred in not declaring that the impugned orders of respondent Judge Paman are all invalid for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, without or in excess of jurisdiction, and in a manner contrary to and in gross violation of the laws.
III. Respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in not ruling that there was no valid substitution of deceased defendant in MTC Civil Case 1674, that MTC Kalibo is bereft of jurisdiction on the subject matter of the case, and that the MTC Decision dated March 7, 2005 and its writ of execution and demolition are void ab initio.30
Notice to counsel is notice to parties. |
A final and executory decision is immutable. |
A definitive final judgment, however erroneous, is no longer subject to change or revision.Petitioners received a copy of the February 28, 2013 Decision of the appellate court on April 8, 2013. Despite receipt thereof, they failed to file a motion for reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period. Therefore, the appellate court's Decision became final and can no longer be assailed by then for being immutable and unalterable.
A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. And this postulate holds true whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land. The orderly administration of justice requires that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must reach a point of finality set by the law. The noble purpose is to write finis to dispute once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who exercise the power of adjudication. Any act, which violates such principle, must immediately be struck down. Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments of what are ordinarily known as courts, but extends to all bodies upon which judicial powers had been conferred.
The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments are (1) the correction of clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3) void judgments.38
Disrespectful, inappropriate, and offensive language used by Atty. Taningco in the present Petition. |
The MTC Decision dated March 7, 2005 in Civil Case 1674 is of patent nullity, for having been issued without jurisdiction over the subject matter, and for lack of due process of law. Jurisdiction is vested with RTC Kalibo as cadastral court. Due process of law is lacking as there was no order of substitution upon the demise of the principal defendant, Atty. Jose P. Taningco.Atty. Taningco is reminded of his duty as a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers.40 He should avoid using offensive or menacing language or behavior before the court and refrain from attributing to a judge motives that are not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.41 The utmost respect due to courts and their officers is enshrined not only in the Lawyer's Oath, but also under Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
x x x
Aforesaid Decision was rendered by then MTC .Judge PAZ ESPERANZA M. CORTES (now RTC Judge of Taguig City who granted bail in the celebrated case of movie & TV personality Vhong Navarro). It was apparently railroaded to finality as the appeals by other defendant with RTC Kalibo and before Court of Appeals-Cebu were all dismissed. The former RTC Executive Judge of Kalibo, Sheila Martelino Cortes (now retired) is the mother of Judge Paz Esperanza Martelino Cortes, while CA Presiding Justice Andres Reyes is the latter's uncle. The Presiding Justice's mother is a Cortes from Balete, Aklan.39 (Emphasis supplied)
Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.In Aparicio v. Andal,42 We held:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
x x x
Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have flo materiality to the case.
[I]t behooves us to remind the petitioner of his basic duty "to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;" to conduct himself with "all good fidelity to the courts;" to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance; that his duty to render respectful civility, without fawning, to the courts is indeed essential to the orderly administration of justice. Thus, he should be courteous, fair, and circumspect, not petulant, combative, or bellicose in his dealings with the courts; and finally, that the use of disrespectful, intemperate, manifestly baseless, and malicious statements by an attorney in his pleading or motion is not only a violation of the lawyer's oath and a transgression of the canons of professional ethics, but also constitutes direct contempt of court for which a lawyer may be disciplined.43His innuendoes that the MTC Judge is the daughter of the retired RTC Executive Judge of Kalibo, Aldan, and the niece of the now retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Andres C. Reyes are unnecessary and irrelevant. Moreover, the language used by Atty. Taningco showed his lack of courtesy to the courts expected from every lawyer. Worse, his unfounded statement suggests that the MTC Decision was affirmed not on its merits but because of the MTC judge's blood relationship with the magistrates from the RTC and CA.
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional member per raffle dated November 23, 2020 vice J. Delos Santos who recused for having penned the assailed CA Decision.
** Judge Virgilio Luna Paman and Judge Alicia Cruz-Barrios are deleted as party-respondents pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
1Rollo, pp. 7-27.
2 Id. at 34-36; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a Member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap.
3 Id. at 42-44.
4 Id. at 32-33.
5 Id. at 37-40.
6 Id. at 121-139; penned by Judge Paz Esperanza M. Cortes.
7 Id. at 139.
8 Id. at 177-183.
9 Id. at 185.
10 CA rollo, p. 71; as noted in the Writ of Execution issued by the MTC on October 15, 2007; CA Rollo, p. 71.
11Rollo, p. 186; as noted by the Court of Appeals in its January 23, 2009 Decision in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 02128.
12 Id. at 186-191.
13 Id. at 193.
14 Id. at 65-69.
15 Id. at 106-110.
16 Id. at 110.
17 CA rollo, pp. 200-205.
18 Id. at 57-58.
19Rollo, p. 114.
20 Id. at 120.
21 Id. at 196-209.
22 Id. at 32-33.
23 Id. at 34-36.
24 CA rollo, pp. 278-282.
25 Id.
26Rollo, pp. 42-44.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id. at 16-17.
31Cervantes v. City Service Corporation, 784 Phil. 694, 699 (2016).
32GCP-Manny Transport Services, Inc. v. Hon. Principe, 511 Phil. 176, 187-188 (2005).
33Scenarios, Inc. v. Vinluan, 587 Phil. 351, 359 (2008).
34Heirs of Bihag v. Heirs of Bathan, 734 Phil. 191, 202 (2014).
35National Housing Authority v. Court of Appeals, 731 Phil. 400, 405 (2014).
36 Id.
37 582 Phil. 357 (2008).
38 Id. at 366-367.
39Rollo, p. 8.
40Alpajora v. Calayan, 823 Phil. 93, 109 (2018).
41 Id.
42 256 Phil. 1005 (1989).
43 Id. at 1014-1015.cralawredlibrary