Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Davao ACF Bus Lines vs. Ang
Davao ACF Bus Lines vs. Ang
The present controversy is a consequence of the execution of judgment in the case of People of
the Phils. vs. Rodolfo Borja Tanio, " for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical
Injuries filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities wherein accused Rodolfo Borja Tanio,
then the driver of a Daewoo Bus registered under the name of ACF was charged with reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. The crime charged was an offshoot of an
incident wherein Tanio bumped a Mitsubishi sedan driven by one Leo B. Delgara causing
damage to the said vehicle and inflicting serious physical injuries upon its passenger, herein
respondent Rogelio Bajao Ang.
The MTCC convicted Tanio and awarded in favor of Ang the nominal damages, moral damages,
as exemplary damages. No appeal from the judgment was interposed, and in time, the decision
became final and executory. In view of its finality, the prosecution filed a Motion for Execution
against the accused Tanio which was granted. However, the writ was returned unsatisfied as
the latter had allegedly no properties that can be levied to satisfy the money judgment. Hence,
upon motion, the MTCC issued a writ of execution against ACF, being the employer of accused
Tanio.
Consequently, ACF filed a Motion to Recall and/or Quash The Writ of Execution 8 against it
which was, however, denied by the MTCC in its Order.
In view of the denial, petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The CA held that the RTC did not err in holding that the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)
did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Order denying ACF's Motion to Recall
and/or Quash The Writ of Execution and ordering the conduct of a hearing to determine whether
ACF should be held subsidiarily liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code for the civil
liability ex delicto of its employee, accused Tanio.
Issue
whether the CA was correct in affirming the RTC's holding that the MTCC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its Order denying ACF's
Motion to Recall and/or Quash The Writ of Execution and ordering the conduct of a hearing to
determine whether or not ACF should be held subsidiarily liable under Article 103 of the Revised
Penal Code for the civil liability ex delicto of its employee, accused Tanio.
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.
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."18 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.