THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230405. May 5, 2021.]
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,vs. PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR TORIBIO E. ILAO, JR., PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT JOSE P. MATEO, EDUARDO B. IQUIN, REYNALDO FELICIANO, CESAR CASTRO, BENITO ARELLANO, BIGAA LANDHOLDINGS and SANTIAGO DOMO,respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated May 5, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230405 (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Provincial Adjudicator Toribio E. Ilao, Jr., Philippine Global Communications, Inc., represented by its President Jose P. Mateo, Eduardo B. Iquin, Reynaldo Feliciano, Cesar Castro, Benito Arellano, Bigaa Landholdings and Santiago Domo). — This resolves the Urgent Motion for Clarification (with Leave of Court) 1 filed by Land Bank of the Philippines (petitioner) seeking for the Court's guidance and clarification on the rate of interest to be imposed on the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) valuation commencing on July 1, 2013 until its full payment so as to properly implement the Court's Resolution 2 promulgated on October 2, 2017, which affirmed the Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 142680 dated September 23, 2016.
Petitioner argues that the imposition of 12% legal interest from the time of taking of the subject property until fully paid is a clear contravention of BSP Circular No. 799, series of 2013. Petitioner claims that if there is delay in payment of the just compensation, the rate allowed in a judgment is no longer 12% per annum but 6% per annum from July 1, 2013. Petitioner also cites LBP v. Eugenio Dalauta, 4 which articulated that the interest shall be computed from the time of taking at the rate of 12% per annum until June 30, 2013, thereafter, the rate shall be 6% per annum until fully paid. In this instant motion, petitioner now seeks guidance and clarification as to the rate of interest to be imposed commencing on July 1, 2013 until its full payment to Philippine Global Communications, Inc. (PGCI). 5
In its Comment, 6 PGCI countered that petitioner is not merely asking for clarification but partakes the nature of a motion for reconsideration, which is asking for the amendment of the Court's Resolution issued on December 11, 2017.
It is a well-established rule that a judgment, once it has attained finality, can never be altered, amended, or modified, even if the alteration, amendment or modification is to correct an erroneous judgment. This is the principle of immutability of judgments — to put an end to what would be an endless litigation. Interestreipublicae ut sit finis litium. In the interest of society as a whole, litigation must come to an end. But this tenet admits several exceptions, these are: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. 7 Upon review of this case, none of the foregoing exceptions is present.
Moreover, petitioner's invocation of the applicability of BSP Circular No. 799, series of 2013 is not new to necessitate a clarification. Petitioner originally raised this issue in its Petition for Review on Certiorari. 8 After the Court denied the foregoing petition on October 2, 2017, petitioner reiterated the same in its Motion for Reconsideration, 9 which was likewise denied with finality on December 11, 2017. It bears stressing that the Court's final denial of this case provided that no further pleadings or motions shall be entertained. On even date, an Entry of Judgment was issued by the Court. Thus, the Court finds that this instant motion, while it seeks guidance and clarification, is essentially a second motion for reconsideration, which the Court cannot entertain for being a prohibited pleading.
In view of the foregoing, the Court notes without action the petitioner's instant motion for being a prohibited pleading and a mere reiteration of arguments in its petition and motion for reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby resolved to merely NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the petitioner's Urgent Motion for Clarification (with Leave of Court) in view of the Court's December 11, 2017 Resolution dismissing this petition with finality.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 251-254.
2.Id. at 259. Entry of Judgment dated December 11, 2017.
3.Id. at 42-49. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
4. 815 Phil. 740, 781 (2017).
5.Rollo, pp. 252-253.
6.Id. at 268-271.
7.Republic v. Heirs of Gotengco, 824 Phil. 568, 578 (2018).
8.Rollo, pp. 12-34.
9.Id. at 227-244.