G.R. No. RTJ-15-2422 July 20, 2015
Flor Gilbuena Rivera, Complainant, vs. Hon. Leandro C. Catalo, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 256, Muntinlupa City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Flor Gilbuena Rivera filed an Amended Petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 256, Muntinlupa City, presided by respondent Judge Leandro C. Catalo, praying for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 3460, which she claimed was lost. The RTC granted the petition in a Decision dated May 18, 2012, which became final and executory on July 3, 2012. Subsequently, the Register of Deeds (RD) of Muntinlupa City, through Acting Records Officer Vivian V. Dacanay, filed a Manifestation informing the court that TCT No. 3460 had in fact been cancelled as early as April 2, 1924, and that the affidavit of loss was false. Acting on this, Judge Catalo set the matter for hearing. After complainant failed to appear and present her side despite notice, Judge Catalo issued an Order dated June 21, 2013, recalling and setting aside his May 18, 2012 Decision. Complainant then filed an administrative complaint against Judge Catalo for gross misconduct, alleging he flip-flopped by recalling a final and executory judgment in violation of judicial conduct.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Leandro C. Catalo is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or gross misconduct for recalling and setting aside a final and executory judgment.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Court held that the doctrine of finality or immutability of judgment admits exceptions, including void judgments and circumstances rendering execution unjust and inequitable. The RTC’s May 18, 2012 Decision was based on a false affidavit of loss concerning a title already cancelled in 1924. Executing such a judgment would sanction fraud, permit the issuance of a new duplicate of a non-existent title, and wreak havoc on the Torrens system. A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is a nullity and can never become final. Judge Catalo correctly exercised his inherent power to amend his processes to conform with law and justice after discovering facts that rendered the judgment void and its execution unjust. He afforded due process by setting a hearing, which complainant did not attend. His act of recalling the judgment was a proper remedy against a void judgment and did not constitute gross ignorance of the law or misconduct.