THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213138. March 21, 2018.]
SPOUSES ANTONIO TUGADE AND AVELINA TUGADE; SPOUSES SAMUEL CABIGAS AND VICTORIA TUGADE-CABIGAS; AND SPOUSES HERMINIGILDO FAINA AND EMILIA TUGADE-FAINA, petitioners, vs.SPOUSES PEREGRINO AND TIMOTEA LOCQUIAO; OSCAR LOCQUIAO; SPOUSES REMIGIO AND LOURDES DUMALANTA; SPOUSES EDSON AND LYDIA LOCQUIAO; SPOUSES EDGAR AND KATY LOCQUIAO; AND ELY CALIP, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 21, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213138 (SPOUSES ANTONIO TUGADE and AVELINA TUGADE; SPOUSES SAMUEL CABIGAS and VICTORIA TUGADE-CABIGAS; and SPOUSES HERMINIGILDO FAINA and EMILIA TUGADE-FAINA, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES PEREGRINO and TIMOTEA LOCQUIAO; OSCAR LOCQUIAO; SPOUSES REMIGIO and LOURDES DUMALANTA; SPOUSES EDSON and LYDIA LOCQUIAO; SPOUSES EDGAR AND KATY LOCQUIAO; and ELY CALIP, Respondents) — It clearly appears from the petition as well as the comment of the respondents that the petitioners received on April 8, 2014 1 the decision promulgated on March 28, 2014, 2 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision rendered on March 5, 2012 3 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur dismissing their appeal by petition for review of the resolution issued on November 24, 2010 by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissing their complaint against the respondents on the ground of res judicata; 4 that the petitioners filed on April 23, 2014 their motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration, 5 but the CA denied the motion for extension on May 27, 2014 because "the filing of a motion for reconsideration under Section 1, Rule 52 of the rules of Court is fixed at a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the copy of the decision;" 6 and that on August 20, 2014 the CA denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration for being time-barred. 7
Considering that the decision promulgated on March 28, 2014 by the CA, which became final by virtue of the petitioners' failure to timely file the motion for reconsideration, is already immutable and beyond review, the Court denies the petition for review on certiorari.
We reiterate that decisions or judgments that have attained finality cannot be reviewed, much less disturbed, pursuant to the doctrine of the immutability of judgments, defined and explained as follows:
x x x It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land, as what remains to be done is the purely ministerial enforcement or execution of the judgment.
The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that at the risk of occasional errors, the judgment of adjudicating bodies must become final and executory on some definite date fixed by law. [x x x], the Supreme Court reiterated that the doctrine of immutability of final judgment is adhered to by necessity notwithstanding occasional errors that may result thereby, since litigations must somehow come to an end for otherwise, it would "be even more intolerable than the wrong and injustice it is designed to correct." 8
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on March 28, 2014 by the Court of Appeals; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit. (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 19.
2.Id. at 45-56; penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, and concurred in by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez.
3.Id. at 57-63; penned by Judge Policarpio P. Martinez.
4.Id. at. 63-71; penned by Judge Modesto L. Quismorio, Jr.
5.Id. at 19.
6.Id. at 42-43.
7.Id. at 83-84.
8.Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., Sales Force Union-PTGWO-Balais v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 155651. July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 507, 513-514.