GR 141013; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141013 November 29, 2000
PACIFIC MILLS, INC. and GEORGE U. LIM, petitioners, vs. HON. MANUEL S. PADOLINA in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC Pasig Branch 162 and PHILIPPINE COTTON CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Philippine Cotton Corporation (PHILCOTTON) filed two collection cases against petitioners, which were consolidated. The trial court ruled in favor of PHILCOTTON. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court in Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, where petitioners were adjudged liable for a sum of money with interests, penalties, and attorney’s fees. This decision became final and executory.
After the Supreme Court decision, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that during the pendency of the case before the Court of Appeals, PHILCOTTON had condoned the interests and penalties. The Supreme Court denied this motion, noting the defense of condonation was a factual issue that should have been raised earlier with the Court of Appeals. Upon remand for execution, petitioners again raised the alleged condonation and partial payments as supervening events warranting a modification of the final judgment. The trial court rejected this, and the Court of Appeals later acknowledged only the partial payments for deduction but upheld the denial regarding condonation.
ISSUE
Whether the alleged condonation of penalties and interests constitutes a valid supervening event that justifies the modification of a final and executory judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the alleged condonation does not qualify as a supervening event that can alter a final judgment. The Court emphasized the doctrine of immutability of final judgments. A judgment that has become final and executory can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified, except for recognized exceptions such as supervening events that occur after the judgment’s finality.
The legal logic is clear: the alleged condonation purportedly occurred in January 1987, while the case was still pending before the Court of Appeals. Facts or events bearing on the substance of the obligation that transpire before a judgment becomes final must be raised and litigated during the appellate proceedings. They cannot be invoked post-finality as a supervening event to frustrate execution. The Court cited Baclayon vs. CA, which holds that attempts to alter an executory judgment based on facts occurring before finality are impermissible. The proper remedies for such pre-finality facts are through a new trial, a petition for relief, or an action to set aside a judgment for extrinsic fraud. Since petitioners failed to plead and prove the condonation during the appellate stages, they are barred from raising it after finality to modify the judgment. The Court’s prior resolution on the matter had already attained finality.