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 rendered a final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 2516, declaring petitioners Cesar Robles and Elisa G. de Robles indebted to respondent Consuelo J. Timario in the sum of P9,218.00 with legal interest from the filing of the action (November 9, 1953) until fully paid. 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. The dispositive portion of this second decision did not mention the payment of legal interest, although the body of the decision referred to the prior judgment which included such interest. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the CFI decision and declared the appeal frivolous. The case was remanded for execution. On November 9, 1957, the CFI issued an order for execution. On December 14, 1957, the CFI amended its order to include in the writ of execution “the legal interest on the sum of P9,218.00 from November 9, 1953, until fully paid.” The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed this petition for certiorari, alleging that the CFI acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction by amending a final and executory judgment. The respondents argued the omission of interest was a mere oversight and the amendment was necessary to conform the judgment to the pleadings and evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in amending its final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 3015 to include the payment of legal interest on the principal amount.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari and set aside the amended order of the Court of First Instance. The Court held that the amendment was not permissible. The dispositive portion of the judgment in Civil Case No. 3015 was clear and unambiguous; it ordered payment of the principal sum only and made no mention of interest. The omission of an order for interest was a judicial error or oversight, not a clerical error or an ambiguity that could be clarified or corrected after the judgment became final. The general power to correct clerical errors does not authorize a court to correct its own inaction or to add something to a judgment that was not originally included, even if it should have been. The cases cited by respondents involved true ambiguities in the judgments, which allowed for clarification. Here, there was no ambiguity, only an omission. The failure to include the interest in the dispositive part was a judicial mistake that counsel for the respondent should have sought to remedy through a timely motion for modification or correction before the judgment became final. The Court distinguished the cited authorities (Locsin vs. Paredes, Velez vs. Martinez, Beltran vs. Reyes, Ralla vs. Director of Lands) as inapplicable because they involved ambiguous judgments, whereas the judgment in question was clear. Therefore, the CFI acted in excess of its jurisdiction in amending the final judgment.