AGUILA

v BALDOVIZO
FACTS:
1. Marlun Lisbos was driving along EDSA, Caloocan with a van registered under
the name of petitioner Danilo Reyes.
2. The van sideswiped Fausto who was walking along the pedestrian lane,
crossing EDSA. He suffered injuries and was brought at the hospital for
treatment, but later on died.
3. Marlun Lisbos was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
4. Faustos wife and children filed before the RTC a separate complaint for
damages against Marlun Lisbos, Danilo Reyes and petitioner Aguila (actual
operator of the van), and Times Surety and Insurance Comapany.
5. Answers:
o Aguila claimed that Fausto disregarded traffic rules and that he
exercised due diligence in the selection of Lisbos as the driver and
that Aguila provided assistance to Fausto.
o Reyes denied ownership of the van.
o Times was declared in default for failure to file an answer.
6. Trial ensue and the petitioner waived their right to present evidence due to
their failure to appear in a hearing.
7. RTC rendered a decision against Aguila. (March, 7, 2000)
8. Aguila and Reyes filed a petition for relief from judgment, but was denied.
9. The defendants filed a motion for writ of execution while the petitioners filed
a motion for reconsideration.
10. The writ was granted, but the MFR was denied.
11. Subsequently, the TC striked out the name of Lisbus from the Dispositive
Portion through an Amended Decision
12. Petitioners appealed from the Appealed decision.
13. CA denied the Appeal:
o Petitioner lost their right to appeal. The appeal was improper for
failure to file within the reglementary period. Thus, the decision
became final and executor.
o The Amended Decision did not give the parties a fresh period within
which to file an appeal.
14. Hence, this petition.
o Petitioners contend that while their right to appeal the original
decision was already lost, the right to appeal on the Amended one
remains.

ISSUE: W/N the petitioners have the right to appeal the Amended Decision
after the original decision had become final and executory.

HELD: NO. The immutability of final judgment applies in the case and none of
the exceptions are present.
o Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, a judgment or final order becomes final
and executory if no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration
was filed within the period provided by the Rules.
 1. As a general rule, before a judgment becomes final and executory, that
judgment may be amended. Upon finality of judgment, the court loses its
jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same.
o The exception is : (1) Correction of clerical errors or the making of
nunc pro tunc entries which causes no prejudice to any party; (3)
Where the judgment is void.
2. The filing of the petitioner of petition for relief from judgment is not the
proper remedy. It is only available only if there are no other remedies. In the
case at bar, the remedies available to petitioner are: To file an appeal, a MFR
or Motion for New Trial. Thus, the petition for relief from judgment did not
toll the running of the reglementary period and thus, the decision became
final and executory.
3. As for the Amended Decision, the SC that it is void. Any amendment or
alteration made which substantially affects the final judgment that becomes
final and executory is null and void. Although it admits of an exception, none
is present in the case at bar.
o It is unnecessary to strike off the name of Lisbos because the
liability of employer in quasi delict is primary and direct.
o Thus, there is no basis for the petitioners to appeal the Amended
Decision which is void.
4. Furthermore, the Court stressed out that the Rules of Court are not mere tools
that they can readily use or discard to serve their own purpose. Litigants should not,
after resorting to a wrong remedy then cry for liberal construction of these rules.