GR 30716; (May, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 30716 May 18, 1990
AMALIA VDA. DE SUAN, et al., petitioners, vs. ERIBERTO A. UNSON, as Sheriff, HON. VICENTE N. CUSI JR., as Judge, and SEGUNDO and LORENZO L. EVICTA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a civil case for cancellation of document and recovery of possession against private respondents. The trial court dismissed their complaint and ordered them to pay moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, but their appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the docket fee and file the required printed Record on Appeal. The trial court’s decision thus became final. Private respondents moved for execution, and the sheriff issued a notice of levy. Petitioners then filed this special civil action for prohibition with preliminary injunction, arguing the trial court’s award of damages was void for lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, as there should be no penalty for the right to litigate.
ISSUE
Whether the special civil action for prohibition is the proper remedy to assail the final and executory decision of the trial court.
RULING
No. The petition for prohibition is improper and without merit. A petition for prohibition is only viable to correct acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The propriety of awarding moral and exemplary damages, which petitioners contest, constitutes an error of judgment reviewable by timely appeal. Petitioners initially took the correct recourse by appealing to the Court of Appeals. However, their failure to perfect that appeal by non-payment of the docket fee and non-filing of the printed Record on Appeal caused the dismissal of their appeal and rendered the trial court’s decision final and executory. The doctrine of finality of judgments is a cornerstone of judicial policy; a decision that has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable. The court loses jurisdiction to amend it, and execution becomes a ministerial duty. Prohibition cannot substitute for a lost appeal. Furthermore, the petition has been rendered moot and academic, as the properties subject of the levy were already sold at public auction and the sale was duly registered before the petition was resolved. The petition is denied.