SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236230. March 5, 2018.]
ROSE MARY A. PUCAN [ASIAN CHRISTIAN ACADEMY], RALPH M. DAGAMPAT, AND AIME ROSE G. TIRADOR [MAGDALENA BELINO], AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, INCLUDING ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED BONA FIDE RESIDENTS, petitioners,vs. MANILA REMNANT CO., INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 March 2018which reads as follows: aScITE
"G.R. No. 236230 (Rose Mary A. Pucan [Asian Christian Academy], Ralph M. Dagampat, and Aime Rose G. Tirador [Magdalena Belino], and all persons claiming rights under them, including all other similarly situated bona fide residents v. Manila Remnant Co., Inc.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS outright the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, or appeal by certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules), filed by petitioners Rose Mary A. Pucan (Asian Christian Academy), Ralph M. Dagampat, and Aime Rose G. Tirador (Magdalena Belino) (petitioners) for being the wrong remedy as the Rules do not allow rulings of first level courts (i.e., Metropolitan Trial Courts) to be appealed before the Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the same Rules. 1
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) correctly ruled that the March 12, 2003 MeTC Decision 2 in Civil Case No. 38-26198, which had been affirmed on appeal all the way up to this Court in G.R. No. 174015, had long become final and executory, and therefore immutable, and for which the June 30, 2009 Order of Execution and the July 20, 2016 Order granting respondent's motion for issuance of writ of demolition 3 were issued; thus, it was left with no choice but to issue the December 18, 2017 Order of Demolition as a matter of course. Subject to recognized exceptions 4 which the Court finds none in this case, it is settled that once a judgment attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the same is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and whether it will be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land, 5 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Sections 3 and 5, Rule 56 of the Rules; Section 1 (e), Rule 41 in relation to Section 2, Rule 41 and Section 9, Rule 40, all of the Rules of Court.
2.Id. at 124-126. Penned by Judge Ralph S. Lee.
3.Id. at 166-168. Penned by Judge Boomsri Sy Rodolfo.
4. These exceptions include: correction of clerical errors; the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to the parties; void judgments; and whenever circumstances transpire after finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. (See Mercury Drug Corporation and Rolando J. Del Rosario v. Spouses Richard Y. Huang & Carmen G. Huang, and Stephen G. Huang, G.R. No. 197654, August 30, 2017)
5. See id. See also Torres v. Aruego, G.R. No. 201271, September 20, 2017.