Aguila and Reyes v.

Baldovizo

FACTS
Marlun Lisbos was driving danilo Reyes van along EDSA when he sideswiped Fausto, a
pedestrian.
o Fausto later died and Lisbos was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide.
Faustos wife Carmen Baldovizo and their children filed a separate complaint against
Lisbos, Reyes, Aguila (operator and possessor of van) and Times Surety & Insurance
under a third-party liability contract.
o Summons were served except on Lisbos, whose whereabouts were unknows.
o In his Answer, Aguila claimed that Fausto disregarded traffic rules when he
crossed EDSA and that he exercised due diligence in hiring Lisbos and that he
provided support during the hospitalization.
o On the other hand, Reyes denied ownership of the van saying that although it
was registered in his name, Aguila was the actual owner and possessor.
o Times Surety was declared in default for failure to file an answer.
o Petitioners were considered to waive right to present evidence for failure to
appear.
RTC favored Baldovizos, defendants are solidarily liable.
o Aguila and Reyes petition for relief from judgment was denied by RTC.
Baldovizos moved for issuance of a writ of execution but petitioners moved for dismissal
on the ground that the certification against forum shopping was defective.
o The writ of execution was granted.
o MR and 2nd MR by petitioners were denied.
However, RTC resolved to strike off the name of Lisbos in the dispositive portion of its
March 7, 2000 Decision for having been inadvertently included.
o Aguila and Reyes appealed the Amended Decision dated August 13, 2001
denied for being improper and the CA ruled that they had lost their right to
appeal.
o No further appeal was made within the reglementary period, decision became
final and executor since the Amended Decision did not give the parties a fresh
period within which to file an appeal.

ISSUE + RULING
Do the petitioners have the right to appeal the amended decision after the original decision had
become final and executory? NO.
 Petitioners: right to appeal May 7, 2000 Decision had been lost but right to appeal
August 13, 2001 decision remained.
o They claimed that the Amended decision superseded the original because their
liabilities increased as a result of Lisbos exclusion.
Under Sec 2, Rule 36, a judgment becomes executor if no appeal or motion for new trial
or reconsideration was filed within the period.
o Principle of immutability: ONLY before it becomes final and executory, may it be
amended.
o Except: clerical errors or the aking of nunc pro tunc (a court ruling nunc pro
tunc applies retroactively to correct an earlier ruling) OR where the judgment is
void.
Petitioners received the March 7, 2000 Decision on April 24, 2000 and had until May 9,
2000 to file an appeal or a motion for new trial or reconsideration.
o During this period, petitioners filed instead a petition for relief from judgment on
May 4, 2000, which was denied.
o Their petition for relief from judgment was not the proper remedy because it is an
extraordinary remedy available only if there are no other remedies it therefore
did not toll the running of the period.
o The remedies available to petitioners were the filing of an appeal, motion for
reconsideration, or motion for new trial.
Furthermore, It was not necessary to amend even if the driver was included albeit
not served with summons, employer and owner are directly and primarily liable in quasi-
delicts.