In Criminal Case No. 99,282-E-00, the MTC found Rodolfo Tanio guilty for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries. He was also adjudged civilly liable to the victim. The judgment became final and executory, but the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied as the accused had no property to satisfy the judgment, thus the MTC issued a Writ of Execution against his employer, Davao ACF Bus Lines, the registered owner of the bus driven by Tanio. Davao ACF Bus Lines filed a Motion to o Recall and/or Quash The Writ of Executionagainst it, which the MTC denied. It also held in abeyance the implementation of the writ for the purpose of receiving evidence on (1) the existence of an employer-employee relationship; (2) that the employer is engaged in some kind of industry; (3) that the employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful act and found to have committed the offense in the discharged (sic) of his duties (not necessarily any offense he commits “while” in the discharge of such duties; (4) that said employee is insolvent.
Davao ACF elevated the case to the RTC, but the RTC also denied its petition for certiorari. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the CA affirmed the RTC decision, hence Davao ACF went up to the Supreme Court.
The Issue:
ACF ascribes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTCC for ordering the execution upon ACF for subsidiary civil liability ex delicto of the latter’s employee based on a judgment that is supposedly void.
The Ruling:
The Court’s Ruling
The aforesaid question should be answered in the affirmative; the instant appeal is denied.
ACF’s argument that grave abuse of discretion was purportedly committed by the MTCC centers primarily on the latter court’s supposed erroneous Order directing the execution of judgment against ACF with respect to the civil liability ex delicto of its employee, accused Tanio, for nominal, moral, and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. ACF alleges that the said order of execution was issued by the MTCC with grave abuse of discretion because, to begin with, the MTCC’s final and executory Judgment dated December 27, 2005 convicting accused Tanio is supposedly null and void.
Simply stated, ACF ascribes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTCC for ordering the execution upon ACF for subsidiary civil liability ex delicto of the latter’s employee based on a judgment that is supposedly void.
ACF’s arguments fail to convince.
First and foremost, it must be stressed that the basic factual premise of ACF is mistaken. ACF alleges that the MTCC has ordered the execution upon ACF as regards the subsidiary civil liability ex delicto of ACF’s employee, accused Tanio. The facts clearly belie that assertion.
In the Order dated March 21, 2007 issued by the MTCC, which ACF alleges is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the MTCC actually ordered that “the implementation of the Writ of Execution issued against ACF Bus Lines, Inc. is hereby ordered to be held in abeyance pending the determination of the existence of the requisites for subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code to attach.”In fact, the MTCC ordered the conduct of a hearing “where both, the prosecution and [ACF] shall be required to present evidence to prove or disprove the existence of the foregoing elements.”
Hence, with the very act alleged to be stained with grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTCC, i.e., the implementation of the Writ of Execution against ACF, having not been committed at all, on this point alone, the instant Petition should already be dismissed for lack of merit.
Further, it must be stressed that, as correctly held by the CA, certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error was committed. Otherwise, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This cannot be allowed.
The administration of justice would not survive such a rule. Consequently, an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctible through the original civil action of certiorari. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari.
In the instant case, the primary argument of ACF is centered on the supposed erroneous award of damages against the ACF’s employee, accused Tanio, made by the MTCC in its Judgment dated December 27, 2005 convicting the latter. But as amply explained by the court a quo, such supposed errors merely pertain only to mistakes of law and not of jurisdiction, thus putting them beyond the ambit of certiorari.
Furthermore, ACF’s act of assailing the award of damages made by the MTCC in its Judgment dated December 27, 2005 is tantamount to an attack against a final and executory judgment, being a clear violation of the doctrine of immutability of judgment.
It must be emphasized that the aforesaid Judgment of the MTCC awarding civil indemnity, which is now being assailed by ACF, was not appealed; thus making it final and executory. Hence, ACF cannot now assail the MTCC’s Judgment lest the elementary principle of immutability of judgments be disregarded. It is established that once a judgment attains finality, it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. Such judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest Court of the land. The doctrine is founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time.
While it is true that the rule on the immutability and finality of judgments admits of certain exceptions, such as when the questioned final and executory judgment is void,a catena of cases has held that a mere erroneous judgment, though rendered according to the course and practice of the court is contrary to law, is not a void judgment.A wrong judgment is not a void judgment, provided the court which renders it had jurisdiction to try the case.
To reiterate, ACF merely questions the issuance of the MTCC’s Judgment dated December 27, 2005 mainly on the basis of the supposed erroneous awarding of civil indemnity. Hence, assuming arguendo that the MTCC’s act of awarding damages was wrong, such does not make the Judgment void as an exception to the principle of immutability of judgments, considering that the court indisputably had jurisdiction to try the case.
Lastly, ACF inserted a novel argument raised for the first time on appeal in the instant Petition: that is, assuming arguendo that Ang is entitled to civil indemnity, the MTCC was supposedly divested with jurisdiction to render judgment on the damages “considering that the aggregate amount of damages is P900,000.00 which amount is way beyond the jurisdiction of the MTCC to grant.”
Not only is the foregoing assertion an argument that should be denied for being raised for the first time on appeal,such argument is patently erroneous. As it is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, it is an established principle that jurisdiction is not determined by the amount ultimately substantiated and awarded by the trial court.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the instant Petition is without merit and should be denied.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated June 27, 2014 and Resolution dated May 5, 2015 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 04400-MIN are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CAGUIOA, J:
Carpio, (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 218516, March 27, 2019, DAVAO ACF BUS LINES, INC., PETITIONER, V. ROGELIO ANG, RESPONDENT.