Friday, February 12, 2016

A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable. - Natalia Realty vs Rivera : 164914 : October 5, 2005 : J. Corona : Third Division : Decision

"x x x.

Settled is the rule that after a judgment becomes final, no additions can be made thereto and nothing can be done therewith except its execution.[21] Once a judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be disturbed no matter how erroneous it may be.[22] In any case, no error was committed in this case. The CA acted correctly in affirming the order of the court a quo to issue an alias writ of execution so that the final orders of the courts could be finally implemented and justice done to the deserving party. It is almost trite to say that execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of the law.[23] When a final judgment becomes executory, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable.[24]

As borne out by the records of the case, the orders sought to be implemented have long become final and executory. In fact, there was already an entry of judgment in this case. But petitioner continued to file one motion after another to block the execution of the final orders of the courts in an attempt to frustrate the ends of justice. Thus, what should have been a simple implementation of said orders spanned over a period of more than twenty years, with nine RTC judges and several justices of this Court and the Court of Appeals, many of them already retired from the service, presiding over the case. All of them, except one, uniformly ruled that private respondents should be restored to their possession of the properties in dispute. If left unexecuted, the final judgment would be nothing but a phyrric victory for private respondents. This is repulsive to our sense of justice and fairness.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for absolute lack of merit.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Committee on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the commencement of disbarment proceedings against Attorneys Reno R. Gonzales Jr. and Katherine C. Jambaro of the Tan and Venturanza Law offices, counsels for petitioners, for their possible unprofessional conduct not befitting their positions as officers of the court.

x x x."