SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257316. November 10, 2021.]
CARMEN R. MELLA, ET AL., petitioners, vs.FRANCISCA B. NUNCIO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257316 (Carmen R. Mella, et al. v. Francisca B. Nuncio). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated October 26, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated June 1, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 114487 for failure of petitioners Carmen, Rhoderick, Rochelle, Ronnalyn, Rhodolfo Oliver, Carolle, Charlie Magne, and Cherry Pearl, all surnamed Mella (petitioners) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing their appeal for being the wrong remedy and/or denying the same for lack of merit as the assailed Decision 4 dated June 13, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 266 (RTC) had already become final and executory.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners availed of the wrong remedy in filing an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 to question the Order 5 dated May 3, 2018 of the RTC which denied their purported 'Motion for Clarification' of the RTC Decision. It bears stressing that the proceedings below were already at the execution stage which is a 'purely ministerial phase of adjudication'; 6 in fact, a Writ of Execution had long been issued by the RTC. Thus, the RTC's Order denying petitioners' Motion is not the 'judgment or final order' contemplated under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court from which an ordinary appeal could be taken. In any event, it is also evident that the RTC Decision had long attained finality, and thus, had become immutable and unalterable. It is a well-settled rule that an immutable judgment 'may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land,' 7 save for exceptional circumstances, 8 none of which obtains in this case.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-7.
2.Id. at 15-41. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr., concurring.
3.Id. at 43-47.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. Not attached to the rollo.
6.Vargas v. Cajucom, 761 Phil. 43 (2015), citing Far Eastern Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. v. Vda. de Hernandez, 160-A Phil. 406 (1975).
7.Navarra v. Liongson, 784 Phil. 942, 953-954 (2016), citing FGU Insurance Corporation v. RTC of Makati, Branch 66, 659 Phil. 117, 122-123 (2011).
8.See Navarra v. Liongson; id. at 954.