GR 18393; (December, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18393 December 17, 1966
USAFFE VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INC., representing over 30,000 PA USAFFE VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II, as claimants for arrears in pay, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The Usaffe Veterans Association, Inc., representing over 30,000 Filipino USAFFE veterans, filed an action in October 1954 to declare the Romulo-Snyder Agreement (1950) illegal and to restrain government officials from disbursing funds under it. The Court of First Instance of Manila upheld the agreement’s validity, a judgment affirmed by the Supreme Court on June 30, 1959 (G.R. No. L-10500). After this Supreme Court decision became final and executory, the appellant filed a motion for new trial in the lower court on December 28, 1959, alleging that the decision was contrary to law, unsupported by evidence, and that a subsequent manifestation by the Auditor General constituted a virtual confession of judgment. The lower court denied this motion on January 19, 1960, and subsequently denied motions to lift and reconsider that order. The lower court based its denial on two grounds: first, the Supreme Court’s affirming decision had become final; second, the alleged newly discovered evidence was not new and would not alter the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the Supreme Court’s decision affirming the lower court’s judgment had already become final and executory.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the lower court denying the motion for a new trial. It held that the appeal was frivolous and without merit. The Court ruled that it is elementary that an inferior court has no legal authority to set aside a final and executory decision of the Supreme Court and grant a new trial. Citing People vs. Vera, the Court emphasized that allowing lower courts to overrule Supreme Court decisions would lead to endless litigation and judicial chaos. The orders appealed from were affirmed, with double costs imposed upon the appellant.