SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246331. June 10, 2019.]
ROBERTO [BERTING] YU, SR., REPRESENTED BY ELIZA YU MADAYAG, petitioner, vs.SPOUSES PABLITO AND TERESITA CUARESMA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246331 (Roberto [Berting] Yu, Sr., represented by Eliza Yu Madayag v. Spouses Pablito and Teresita Cuaresma)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the February 1, 2018 Decision 2 and the November 14, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 150639 for failure of petitioner Roberto (Berting) Yu, Sr., represented by Eliza Yu Madayag (petitioner), to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the November 2, 2016 Order 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 6, which denied petitioner's Motion to Quash Motion for Execution. 5 HTcADC
As correctly held by the CA, there was no grave abuse of discretion committed by the RTC when it issued the assailed orders 6 granting the Motion for Execution 7 and issuing a Writ of Execution 8 in favor of respondents Spouses Pablito and Teresita Cuaresma (respondents). 9 When a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable, 10 and the court which rendered judgment only has the ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution. 11 A decision that has attained finality becomes the law of the case regardless of any claim that it is erroneous. 12 Any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose. 13 As admitted by petitioner, the August 8, 2013 Decision 14 of the RTC had become final and executory as evidenced by the May 28, 2015 Entry of Judgment. 15 Thus, the RTC had nothing else to do but to grant respondents' motion.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-19.
2.Id. at 24-30. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court), concurring.
3.Id. at 32-33.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. Not attached to the rollo.
6. Dated June 10, 2016 and November 2, 2016, respectively. Both RTC Orders are not attached to the rollo. See rollo, p. 26.
7. Not attached to the rollo.
8. Not attached to the rollo. See rollo, p. 26.
9. See rollo, pp. 26 and 28.
10. See People v. Alapan, G.R. No. 199527, January 10, 2018.
11. See Anama v. CA, 680 Phil. 305, 308 (2012).
12.Buenviaje v. CA, 440 Phil. 84, 94 (2002).
13.Obra v. Spouses Badua, 556 Phil. 456 Phil. 464 (2007).
14. The attached RTC Decision rendered by Presiding Judge Cecilia Corazon S. Dulay-Archog lacks its last few pages. See rollo, pp. 41-51.
15. See rollo, pp. 28-29.