G.R. No. L-20268 April 28, 1969
VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA and THE FIRST NATIONAL SURETY AND ASSURANCE COMPANY, INC., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and CANDIDO R. DIZON, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an action filed by Candido R. Dizon against Venancio Castañeda for recovery of rentals and damages on a tractor lease contract, with The First National Surety and Assurance Company, Inc. included as a defendant on the performance bond. The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment for the plaintiff. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. In the body of its decision, the Court of Appeals computed the defendants’ total liability, after deducting an amount already paid, to be P34,720.37. However, the dispositive portion of the same decision ordered defendant Castañeda to pay, jointly and severally with the Surety, P23,000.00, and additionally, Castañeda alone to pay P13,720.37, resulting in a total award of P36,720.37—a discrepancy of P2,000.00. The defendants moved for clarification and partial reconsideration, pointing out this clerical error. The plaintiff (respondent Dizon) concurred with this first ground in his answer to the motion, stating the error was clerical and could be corrected at any time. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals denied the motion. The defendants then filed the present petition for review by certiorari. In this proceeding, respondent Dizon reversed his position, objecting to the correction on the grounds that the decision had become final and executory and that the amount awarded was a factual finding beyond this Court’s review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in denying the motion to correct a clerical error in the dispositive portion of its decision, which created a discrepancy between the computation in the body of the decision and the award decreed in the dispositive part.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and modified the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Court found an undeniable inconsistency between the body of the decision and its dispositive portion, with the latter awarding P2,000.00 more than the liability established in the ratio decidendi. The Court rejected respondent Dizon’s procedural objections. First, it held that the fifteen-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was extendible, as the rules of procedure are not so rigid as to render such periods absolutely non-extendible unless expressly stated, and the Court has control over its processes. Second, the Court clarified that it was not reviewing a factual finding of the Court of Appeals but was merely aligning the dispositive portion with the Court of Appeals’ own factual findings as stated in the body of its decision. The Court noted the unreasonableness of respondent’s shift in position, having initially agreed to the correction. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the judgment by reducing the amount in paragraph (3) of the dispositive portion from P13,720.37 to P11,720.37, thereby fixing the total correct award at P34,720.37, exclusive of interests. Double costs were imposed against respondent Dizon.