G.R. No. 45030 ; March 28, 1936
SALVACION LOCSIN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. GERONIMO PAREDES, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, and C. N. HODGES, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent C. N. Hodges filed a complaint against petitioners Salvacion Locsin et al. to recover a sum based on a joint and several promissory note. Petitioners admitted the debt. The trial court rendered a decision ordering petitioners to pay the amount, but the dispositive part omitted the term “severally.” After the decision became final and executory and a writ of execution was issued, Hodges filed a motion to amend the decision to include “severally,” invoking Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court initially denied but later granted the motion, amending the dispositive part. Petitioners challenged the amendment via certiorari, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend a final judgment.

ISSUE

1. Whether a party in whose favor a final judgment was rendered may invoke Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend it.
2. Whether the trial court could validly amend the dispositive part of a final judgment to clarify an ambiguity by adding “severally.”

RULING

1. No. Section 113 provides relief to a party against whom a judgment was rendered due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, not to the party in whose favor it was rendered. Hodges’s counsel’s failure to seek amendment before finality constituted negligence, barring relief under Section 113.
2. Yes. The amendment was permissible as a clarification of an ambiguity. The complaint, evidence, and the court’s conclusions showed the obligation was joint and several. The omission of “severally” in the dispositive part was a mere oversight, creating an ambiguity that could be clarified even after finality. The trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction in amending the judgment to reflect the clear intent. The petition for certiorari was denied.

AI Generated by Armztrong.