Remedies On Final and Executory Judgment

FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT: POST JUDGMENT REMEDIES
General Rule on Final and Executory Judgment
As a general rule, final and executory judgments are immutable and

unalterable, except under these recognized exceptions, to wit: (a) clerical errors;
(b) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; and (c) void
judgments.1
In Briones-Vazquez v. Court of Appeals,2 nunc pro tunc judgments have been

defined and characterized as follows:
The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a new

judgment and the ascertainment and determination of new rights, but is
one placing in proper form on the record, the judgment that had been
previously rendered, to make it speak the truth, so as to make it show
what the judicial action really was, not to correct judicial errors, such as to
render a judgment which the court ought to have rendered, in place of
the one it did erroneously render, nor to supply non-action by the court,
however erroneous the judgment may have been.
In Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,3 the Supreme Court

discussed the rule on immutability of judgment and said:
No other procedural law principle is indeed more settled than that once a
judgment becomes final, it is no longer subject to change, revision,
amendment or reversal, except only for correction of clerical errors, or the
making of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, or
where the judgment itself is void. The underlying reason for the rule is
two-fold: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus make
orderly the discharge of judicial business, and (2) to put judicial
controversies to an end, at the risk of occasional errors, inasmuch as
controversies cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely and the rights and
obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite
period of time.
As the Court declared in Yau v. Silverio,4
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is

essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a
1
Briones-Vasquez v. CA, G.R. No. 144882 , February 04, 2005.
2
Ibid.
3
G.R. No. 165697 & G.R. No. 166481, August 4, 2009,
4
G.R. No. 158848, February 4, 2008
1
judgment has become final, the winning party be, not through a mere
subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must, therefore,
guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result.
Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should
frown upon any attempt to prolong them.
Indeed, just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the
prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the
finality of the resolution of his case by the execution and satisfaction of the
judgment. Any attempt to thwart this rigid rule and deny the prevailing litigant his
right to savor the fruit of his victory must immediately be struck down. Thus,
in Heirs of Wenceslao Samper v. Reciproco-Noble5, the court had occasion to emphasize
the significance of this rule, to wit:
It is an important fundamental principle in our Judicial system that every

litigation must come to an end x x x Access to the courts is guaranteed.
But there must be a limit thereto. Once a litigant’s rights have been
adjudicated in a valid 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 in number to the detriment of the administration of justice.
Remedies after judgment becomes final and executory
(a) Petition for relief from judgment;
(b) Action to annul a judgment; (Direct attack)
(c) Certiorari; (Direct attack) and
(d) Collateral attack of a judgment.
I. Reliefs from Judgments, Orders and Other Proceedings (Rule 38)
(1) A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy that is allowed
only in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy.
When a party has another remedy available to him, which may be either a motion
for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and he was not
prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing such
motion or taking such appeal, he cannot avail himself of this petition6.
5
G.R. No. 142594, June 26, 2007
6
Trust International Paper Corp. vs. Pelaez, GR 164871, Aug. 22, 2006
2
(2) Under Sec. 5, Rule 38, the court in which the petition is filed, may grant such
preliminary injunction to preserve the rights of the parties upon the filing of a bond
in favor of the adverse party. The bond is conditioned upon the payment to the
adverse party of all damages and costs that may be awarded to such adverse party
by reason of the issuance of the injunction (Sec. 5).

Grounds for availing of the remedy (petition for relief)
(1) When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is

thereafter taken against a party in any court through (a) fraud, (b) accident, (c)
mistake, or (c) excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the
same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside (Sec. 1, Rule
38).
(2) When the petitioner has been prevented from taking an appeal by fraud,
mistake, or excusable negligence (Sec. 2).
Time to file petition
(1) A petition for relief from judgment, order or other proceedings must be
verified, filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order,
or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such
judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be
accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner’s good and
substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be (Sec. 3, Rule 38).
Contents of petition
(1) The petition must be verified and must be accompanied with affidavits
showing fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts
constituting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the
case may be (Sec. 3).
II. Annulment of Judgments, or Final Orders and Resolutions (Rule 47)

Grounds for annulment
3
(1) The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack
of jurisdiction. Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or
could have been availed of in a motion for new trial or petition for relief (Sec. 2,
Rule 47).
Period to file action

(1) If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from
its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or
estoppels (Sec. 3).
Effects of judgment of annulment
(1) A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final
order or resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to the
original action being refilled in the proper court. However, where the judgment or
final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may
on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had
been granted therein (Sec. 7, Rule 47).
III. Certiorari (Rule 65)
IV. Collateral attack on judgments
(1) A collateral attack is made when, in another action to obtain a different relief,
an attack on the judgment is made as an incident in said action. This is proper only
when the judgment, on its face, is null and void, as where it is patent that the court
which rendered said judgment has no jurisdiction 7. Examples: A petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 is a direct attack. It is filed primarily to have an order
annulled. An action for annulment of a judgment is likewise a direct attack on a
judgment. A motion to dismiss a complaint for collection of a sum of money filed
by a corporation against the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff has no legal
capacity to use is a collateral attack on the corporation. A motion to dismiss is
incidental to the main action for the sum of money. It is not filed as an action
intended to attack the legal existence of the plaintiff8.
7
Co vs. CA, 196 SCRA 705
8
Ibid.

Remedies On Final and Executory Judgment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedies On Final and Executory Judgment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remedies On Final and Executory Judgment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT: POST JUDGMENT REMEDIES

General Rule on Final and Executory Judgment

As a general rule, final and executory judgments are immutable and

In Briones-Vazquez v. Court of Appeals,2 nunc pro tunc judgments have been

The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a new

In Navarro v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company,3 the Supreme Court

As the Court declared in Yau v. Silverio,4

Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is

It is an important fundamental principle in our Judicial system that every

Remedies after judgment becomes final and executory

(a) Petition for relief from judgment;

(b) Action to annul a judgment; (Direct attack)

(c) Certiorari; (Direct attack) and

(d) Collateral attack of a judgment.

I. Reliefs from Judgments, Orders and Other Proceedings (Rule 38)

(1) When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is

Time to file petition

II. Annulment of Judgments, or Final Orders and Resolutions (Rule 47)

Period to file action

Effects of judgment of annulment

III. Certiorari (Rule 65)

IV. Collateral attack on judgments

You might also like