Rivera vs. Catalo

A.M. No. RTJ-15-2422 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4129-RTJ] 

July 20, 2015

FLOR GILBUENA RIVERA v. HON. LEANDRO C. CATALO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 256, MUNTINLUPA CITY

FACTS:

Complainant alleged that he was one of the heirs of Juan Gilbuena; that TCT No. 3460 was registered under the name of Gilbuena; and that the owner's duplicate copy of the said title had remained missing despite their diligent efforts to locate the same. When the case was called for hearing, no oppositor appeared before the RTC. Upon motion, complainant was allowed to present evidence ex-parte. On May 18, 2012, Judge Catalo rendered his decision granting the petition for issuance of new owner's duplicate copy on the basis of the evidence presented by complainant, particularly the affidavit of loss and the certification issued by the Register of Deeds. Respondent judge ordered the Register of Deeds to issue a new Owners Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title.

The Register of Deeds, through Acting Records Officer Vivian V. Dacanay, formally filed her Manifestation before the RTC stating that upon examination, it appeared that TCT No. 3460 had long been cancelled as early as 1924 because it was discovered that the title was not lost, rather, it was cancelled by virtue of valid transactions and conveyance. Acting thereon, Respondent Judge after hearing recalled and set aside its earlier decision. Aggrieved, complainant filed the subject administrative complaint against Judge Catalo for gross misconduct. In its Report, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) opined that Judge Catalo was administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. It recommended that respondent be fined in the amount of P21,000.00.

ISSUE:

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable in recalling his earlier decision?

Held:

No. The Court declined the recommendation of the OCA. The Court is not at all convinced that Judge Catalo committed gross ignorance of the law. Indeed, 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. Like any other rule, however, there are recognized exceptions to this general rule such as (1) the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, (2) void judgments, and (3) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.

Under the second exception, a void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It neither is a source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void.

Judge Catalo correctly recalled the judgment because the second and third exceptions on the doctrine of finality of judgments were squarely applicable.

Where there is no original, there can be no duplicate. Respondent stressed that a court had no jurisdiction to order the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of a certificate of title when it was, in fact, not lost. Here, the original title was not lost but officially cancelled. Hence, Judge Catalo correctly exercised his judicial prerogative to amend and control his factually and legally infirm decision.

The validity of a final judgment may be attacked on the ground that the judgment or order is null and void, because the court had no power or authority to grant the relief or no jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties or both. The aggrieved party may attack the validity of the final judgment by a direct action or proceeding in order to annul the same, as certiorari, which is not incidental to, but is the main object of the proceeding. The validity of a final judgment may also be attacked collaterally as when a party files a motion for the execution of the judgment and the adverse party resists the motion by claiming that the court has no authority to pronounce the judgment and that the same is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties.  Hence, Judge Catalo committed no gross ignorance of the law. Consequently, the complaint against respondent Judge Leandro C. Catalo is DISMISSED.