Tolentino v. Ongsiako
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff-appellant Esperidion Tolentino filed a complaint seeking to enforce the dissenting opinion rendered in the case of "Severo Domingo, et al. vs. Santos Ongsiako, et al., G.R. No. 32776." The decision in the original case, promulgated on December 4, 1930, was adverse to the predecessors of the appellant. The records of the original case were lost during the war. Procedural History: The plaintiff-appellant claimed to be the successor-in-interest of Severo Domingo, who allegedly died without receiving a copy of the decision. The appellant learned of the decision only a week before filing the complaint and asserted that the majority decision was erroneous and unjust, while the dissenting opinion was correct. The Court of First Instance dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. The Petition: The plaintiff-appellant appealed the dismissal, arguing that the failure to serve a copy of the decision upon Severo Domingo constituted a denial of due process, invalidating the decision. He also asked that the case be heard as a proceeding coram nobis on equitable grounds.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to serve a copy of the decision upon the late Severo Domingo constituted a denial of due process. Whether the dissenting opinion in G.R. No. 32776 could be enforced. Whether the present case could be treated as a proceeding coram nobis.
Ruling
The order of dismissal is affirmed. Costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged denial of due process: Assuming the allegation that Severo Domingo was not furnished a copy of the decision is true, the records show he was represented by Atty. Ramon Diokno. Under Section 250 of Act 190, service of a decision is made upon the counsel, not the client. There is a unrebutted presumption that the clerk of the Supreme Court regularly performed their duty in serving the decision upon Atty. Diokno. Therefore, Severo Domingo was not denied due process of law. The appellant's claim that the decision was erroneous and unjust is untenable because the issue is already res judicata, having stood unchallenged for 30 years. On the enforcement of a dissenting opinion: The prayer to enforce a dissenting opinion is without merit. A dissenting opinion merely expresses the views of the dissenter and does not affirm or overrule any claim, right, or obligation. It does not dispose of, nor award, anything. Consequently, there is nothing to enforce in a dissenting opinion. On the applicability of a proceeding coram nobis: The claim that the lower court erred in not allowing the cause as a proceeding coram nobis is devoid of merit. The writ of error coram nobis, an ancient common law writ, is substantially obsolete even in common law jurisdictions. It does not lie after affirmance of a judgment on writ of error on appeal, nor can it be grounded on facts already in issue and adjudicated. Moreover, the jurisdiction for such a writ lies exclusively with the court that rendered the judgment sought to be corrected. In the Philippines, no court has recognized such a writ, adhering to the principle that public policy and sound practice demand that judgments become final and irrevocable at a definite date fixed by law (interes rei publicae ut finis sit litium).
Main Doctrine
A dissenting opinion has no legal force or effect as it does not affirm or overrule any claim, right, or obligation, nor does it dispose of or award anything. Furthermore, the writ of error coram nobis is not applicable in the Philippines for correcting judgments, as public policy and sound practice demand that judgments become final and irrevocable.