GR L 13911; (April, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13911; April 28, 1960
CESAR ROBLES and ELISA G. DE ROBLES, petitioners, vs. DONATO TIMARIO, CONSUELO S. DE TIMARIO, and THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, respondents.
FACTS
On May 12, 1955, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Sur, in Civil Case No. 2516, rendered a final and executory judgment declaring petitioners Cesar Robles and Elisa G. de Robles indebted to respondent Consuelo Timario in the sum of P9,218.00 with legal interest from the filing of the action (November 9, 1953) until fully paid. Subsequently, on June 14, 1955, the respondent filed another civil action (Civil Case No. 3015) against the same petitioners to enforce the payment of the judgment debt from the first case. The CFI rendered judgment on October 17, 1955, ordering the petitioners to pay the sum of P9,218.00, but the dispositive portion of this second decision omitted any mention of the legal interest. This second case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the CFI decision, also without mentioning interest in its dispositive portion, and declared the appeal frivolous. After remand for execution, the CFI judge, on December 14, 1957, amended the writ of execution to include the legal interest on the P9,218.00 from November 9, 1953. The petitioners challenged this amendment via certiorari, arguing that the CFI acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by altering a final and executory judgment.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance acted with jurisdiction in amending the writ of execution to include the payment of legal interest, which was omitted in the dispositive portion of the final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 3015.
RULING
No. The Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and set aside the amended order for execution.
The dispositive portion of the judgment in Civil Case No. 3015 (affirmed by the Court of Appeals) was clear and unambiguous: it ordered payment of the principal sum of P9,218.00 only, with no mention of interest. The omission of the interest was a judicial error or oversight, not a clerical error or an ambiguity that could be clarified by reference to the body of the decision. The power to correct clerical errors or ambiguities in a final judgment does not extend to repairing a court’s judicial inaction or omission to include something it could and should have adjudged. The respondents’ cited authorities (e.g., Locsin vs. Paredes, Velez vs. Martinez) were inapplicable as they involved genuine ambiguities in the judgments, which is not present in this case. Consequently, the CFI’s amendment, which effectively added a new provision for interest, constituted an alteration of a final judgment beyond its authority. The proper remedy for the omission was a timely appeal or a motion for correction before the judgment became final, which was not done.