CASE 7

MARILYN B. MONTEHERMOSO, TANNY B. MONTEHERMOSO, EMMA B. MONTEHERMOSO

OLIVEROS, EVA B. MONTEHERMOSO, TERESA B. MONTEHERMOSO CARIG, AND SALVAR B.
MONTEHERMOSO, PETITIONERS, VS. ROMEO BATUTO AND ARNEL BATUTO,
RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 246553, December 02, 2020

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

FACTS:

The case arose from a complaint for cancellation of title, reconveyance, and damages. Respondents, Romeo
Batuto and Arnel Batuto, claimed that their property was erroneously included in petitioners, Montehermoso’s.
The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents and ordered the reconveyance of the property to them. The
petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeal but it was dismissed and affirmed the RTC decision. The same
become final and executory and writ of execution, as well as, writ of demolition were issued.

Petitioner, Tanny Montehermoso, filed a petition for relief about a year later, but the CA dismissed. The former
filed for motion for reconsideration, but it was also denied. Hence, the petitioners filed for petition for certiorari,
which the court denied for failure to show that CA committed reversible error.

Instead of stopping, petitioners, again filed, this time, a petition for annulment of judgement before the CA on
the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case. The CA dismissed it, the same with their motion for
reconsideration.

Finally, Petitioners, once again, are back before the Court via Rule 45, assailing the Court of Appeals' denial of
their petition for annulment of judgment

ISSUE:αw

Whether or not the CA is correct in dismissing the petioner’s barrage of court actions all directed to set aside the
RTC decisions?

RULING:

YES. Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired
finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and 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. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck
down.

It is an important fundamental principle in the judicial system that every litigation must come to an end. Access
to the courts is guaranteed. But there must be a limit thereto. Once a litigant's rights have been adjudicated in a
valid and final judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for
another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. For, if endless litigations were to
be encouraged, then unscrupulous litigants will multiply to the detriment of the administration of justice.

Invariably, petitioners, for over five (5) years since the trial court rendered its decision, have never stopped
attacking it before different fora and through different modes of review. This notwithstanding that the assailed
decision had long attained finality.

Here, petitioners, too, should now stop making a mockery of the judicial system through their pernicious
attempts to revive the trial court's long settled and implemented decision. A violation of this injunction will be
sanctioned accordingly.

CASE 8
SANTOS-YLLANA REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RICARDO DEANG AND
FLORENTINA DEANG, Respondents.

G.R. No. 190043, June 21, 2017

VELASCO JR., J.:

FACTS:

Respondent Florentina Deang is a former lessee of a stall in Santos-Yllana Shopping Center. Due to Florentina's
failure to pay her rents and other charges due, petitioner filed a Complaint for Ejectment with Damages against
respondents before MTC of Angeles City. The case was raffled and MTC rendered a decision based on a
Compromise Agreement that the parties executed.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Execution of the MTC decision due to Florentina's failure to comply with the terms
of the Compromise Agreement. Respondents objected, alleging that the amount due to petitioner had already
been paid in full. After resolving the objections, the MTC grant the issuance of Writ of Execution, and the same
was accordingly issued.

Respondents moved to quash the said Writ. The same day Sheriff Sicat implemented the writ of execution and
padlocked respondents’ stall. The stall, however, was ordered reopened by MTC within the same day due to the
pendency of the motion for reconsideration.

During the hearing, respondents reiterated their claim that they had already paid the rental arrearages and other
fees and charges due to petitioner; hence, the Motion for Execution should be rendered moot and academic. The
MTC issued an order upholding the writ of execution and command the sheriff to immediately implement the
same.

Aggrieved, respondents filed a complaint for damages with prayer for injunctive relief before the Manila RTC
alleging the writ of execution was illegally implemented.

The RTC held that the enforcement of the writ was tainted with malice and bad faith on the part of petitioner.
Hence, it ruled in favor of the respondents.

Dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal. The CA found that the Sheriff failed to observed notice requirement,
however, relieved the petitioner from any fault arising out of the manner of implementation of the writ. Despite
the findings, the CA adjudged petitioner liable for damages to respondents. Except for the actual damages
awarded, which were found to be unsubstantiated.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but it was denied. Hence the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the moral and exemplary damages awarded, including attorney’s fees,
despite it finding that petitioner had no participation in the implementation of writ of execution?

RULING:

YES. A reading of the RTC's judgment shows that it was not conclusively proved that petitioner committed bad
faith or connived with the sheriffs in the implementation of the Writ. Moreover, no less than the CA, in the body
of its Decision, absolved petitioner from any fault and participation in the injury inflicted upon respondents by
reason of the haphazard implementation of the Writ of Execution. 

The CA cannot ascribe any fault on the part of [petitioner] corporation as to the manner of implementing
the writ. Records is bereft of any showing that defendant-appellant [had] a hand in the non-compliance
with the notice requirement mandated by law.

The CA's pronouncement is manifestly incongruent with the disposition of the case as stated in the fallo of the
assailed Decision. The Court is not unmindful of the rule that "the operative part in every decision is the
dispositive portion or the fallo, and where there is conflict between the fallo and the body of the decision,
the fallo controls. However, the rule is not without exception. Where the inevitable conclusion from the body of
the decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision
will prevail.

The CA's own categorical finding, as embodied and discussed in the body of the adverted decision, negates any
liability on the part of petitioner to compensate respondents for the injuries they suffered due to the misconduct
and culpability of Sheriffs Sicat and Pangan, for which they were accordingly administratively charged and
disciplined. To hold petitioners liable for damages, despite having been categorically absolved, is manifestly
unjust and inequitable.

Applying the foregoing disquisition in the present case, we cannot sustain the judgment affirming petitioner's
liability for damages to respondents.