Salonga v. Natividad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs Trinidad Manois-Salonga and Isaias Reyes Salonga filed a complaint against defendants Imelda V. Natividad and her husband, Marciano Natividad, to collect P10,000.00 based on a promissory note executed by Imelda V. Natividad in favor of Trinidad M. Salonga. The promissory note stipulated payment of P10,000.00 on or before March 28, 1954. Procedural History: Defendants admitted the execution of the note but claimed P1,000.00 had been paid and pleaded for time to pay the balance due to business reverses and Imelda's illness. At the hearing, plaintiffs admitted the P1,000.00 payment, and Imelda confessed judgment for the P9,000.00 balance. The trial court rendered judgment ordering the defendant to pay P9,000.00 without interest, P200.00 as attorney's fees, and costs. After the judgment became final, plaintiffs moved for execution. The writ of execution issued excluded Marciano Natividad. Plaintiffs then moved to correct a clerical error, arguing the dispositive portion should have referred to 'defendants' (plural) instead of 'defendant' (singular). The trial court granted this motion, amending the decision and ordering a new writ of execution including Marciano Natividad. Subsequently, the defendants petitioned to set aside the alias writ, arguing the motion for correction was out of time and that the original decision was correct as the debt was solely Imelda's. Marciano Natividad also filed a separate petition to set aside the amendatory order, asserting no cause of action against him and that the amendment constituted a substantial error. The trial court set aside its amendatory order and lifted the garnishment on Marciano's salary. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this appeal. The Petition: Plaintiffs-appellants appealed the trial court's order setting aside its previous order that amended the judgment to include Marciano Natividad in the execution of the P9,000.00 debt.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal from an order of execution of a final judgment is proper. Whether the amendment of the dispositive portion of a final and executory judgment to include the husband of the original defendant, who did not sign the promissory note, constitutes a correction of a clerical error or a substantial error.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order setting aside its amendatory decision and lifting the garnishment on Marciano Natividad's salary. The appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the appeal: The Court held that while generally orders of execution are not appealable to prevent endless litigation, an appeal is allowed when the order of execution varies the terms of the judgment, does not conform to its essence, or when the terms of the judgment are unclear and the trial court's interpretation in the execution order is deemed incorrect by the defeated party. In this case, the appeal was deemed proper due to the dispute over the nature of the amendment to the judgment. On the nature of the amendment: The Court ruled that the amendment of the judgment to include Marciano Natividad was not a correction of a clerical error but a substantial error. A clerical error is a mistake in writing or copying, whereas a substantial error involves a change in the substance of the judgment. The original judgment held Imelda V. Natividad liable solely based on her promissory note, and no cause of action was alleged against Marciano Natividad or the conjugal partnership. To include him in the execution would make him liable for a debt he did not incur, which would fundamentally alter the judgment. The Court reiterated the rule that after a judgment becomes final and executory, no amendment or correction can be made except for clerical errors. The alleged error of not holding Marciano Natividad liable from the outset was an error of judgment, correctible only by appeal, not by a motion to correct clerical errors.
Main Doctrine
An amendment to a final and executory judgment is permissible only to correct clerical errors, not substantial errors, as the latter can only be corrected through an appeal.