Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Davao ACF Bus Lines vs. Ang

    Uploaded by

    Rob
    74 views3 pages
    The Court held that the CA did not err in affirming the RTC's decision that the MTCC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing its order denying ACF's motion to recall the writ of execution. The MTCC ordered the implementation of the writ of execution be held in abeyance pending determination of ACF's subsidiary liability, so there was no abuse of discretion. Errors of judgment by a court with proper jurisdiction are not correctible through certiorari. The MTCC had jurisdiction over the case, so any errors were merely errors of judgment and not jurisdiction. ACF could not attack the damages award in the final MTCC judgment as this violates the principle of immutability of judgments.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    98. Davao ACF Bus Lines vs. Ang

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Court held that the CA did not err in affirming the RTC's decision that the MTCC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing its order denying ACF's motion to recall the writ of execution. The MTCC ordered the implementation of the writ of execution be held in abeyance pending determination of ACF's subsidiary liability, so there was no abuse of discretion. Errors of judgment by a court with proper jurisdiction are not correctible through certiorari. The MTCC had jurisdiction over the case, so any errors were merely errors of judgment and not jurisdiction. ACF could not attack the damages award in the final MTCC judgment as this violates the principle of immutability of judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views3 pages

    Davao ACF Bus Lines vs. Ang

    Uploaded by

    Rob
    The Court held that the CA did not err in affirming the RTC's decision that the MTCC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing its order denying ACF's motion to recall the writ of execution. The MTCC ordered the implementation of the writ of execution be held in abeyance pending determination of ACF's subsidiary liability, so there was no abuse of discretion. Errors of judgment by a court with proper jurisdiction are not correctible through certiorari. The MTCC had jurisdiction over the case, so any errors were merely errors of judgment and not jurisdiction. ACF could not attack the damages award in the final MTCC judgment as this violates the principle of immutability of judgments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    DAVAO ACF BUS LINES, INC., PETITIONER, v. ROGELIO ANG, RESPONDENT.

    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.

    You might also like