Sta. Romana v. Lacson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Civil Case No. 13717 involved an original plaintiff, Macondray & Co., Inc., and defendants Jose Puno Pineda and Juanito Baldeo. Gregorio Sta. Romana intervened, with Mariano M. Lacson as a defendant-intervenor (cross-defendant). A decision was rendered on March 18, 1954, with two dispositive paragraphs: the first concerning Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. Pineda et al., and the second concerning Gregorio Sta. Romana vs. Mariano M. Lacson. The second paragraph ordered Lacson to pay Sta. Romana P8,000.00 for a seized Packard 8 Club Sedan, plus the value of an unredeemed promissory note, with interest and attorney's fees. The decision became final for the defendants on March 23, 1954. Procedural History: On motion for reconsideration by Macondray & Co., Inc., an amended and clarified judgment was issued on July 13, 1954, which modified only the first paragraph of the March 18, 1954 decision. The second paragraph concerning Sta. Romana and Lacson was expressly stated to remain unaltered. A copy of this amended decision was received by the cross-defendant's counsel on July 19, 1954. The original judgment, as amended, remained unsatisfied. On July 3, 1964, Gregorio Sta. Romana filed an action for revival of judgment against Mariano M. Lacson. The defendant raised the affirmative defense of prescription, arguing the action was filed more than ten years after the judgment became final and executory. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the case on the ground of prescription. The Petition: The plaintiff-appellant appealed the dismissal, assigning as errors the lower court's computation of the prescriptive period from April 23, 1954 (alleged finality of the second paragraph of the original judgment) instead of August 19, 1954 (finality of the amended judgment), and its failure to regard the fallo as an integral whole. The sole issue was from what date the ten-year prescriptive period for enforcing the judgment should be counted.
Issue(s)
Whether the action for revival of judgment has prescribed; and from what date should the ten-year prescriptive period for enforcing the judgment be computed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of dismissal and ordered the defendant Mariano M. Lacson to pay the plaintiff, Diosdado Sta. Romana (successor in interest of Gregorio Sta. Romana), the sums awarded in the second paragraph of the original judgment, with legal interest from the respective dates of filing of the complaint in intervention and the action to revive.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription and the computation of the prescriptive period: The Court held that the action for revival of judgment was filed within the reglementary period. The Court reasoned that the amended and clarified judgment dated July 13, 1954, superseded the original decision dated March 18, 1954. This amended judgment was considered an entirely new decision from which the time to appeal and the period for enforcement should be reckoned, citing Magdalena Estate, Inc. vs. Caluag. The lower court erred in considering the second paragraph of the original judgment as final and executory on April 23, 1954, independently of the amended judgment. The amended judgment clarified and reaffirmed the second paragraph, making it an integral part of the new decision. Since the counsel for the defendant-appellee received a copy of the amended judgment on July 19, 1954, the reglementary period for appeal lapsed on August 19, 1954, marking the finality of the judgment. The action to revive was filed on July 3, 1964, which is well within the ten-year period provided by Article 1144(3) and Article 1152 of the Civil Code, and Section 6 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The dismissal on the ground of prescription was a palpable error, as confirmed by Continental Bank vs. Tiangco.
Main Doctrine
An amended and clarified judgment, which supersedes the original decision, serves as the new basis for reckoning the reglementary period for appeal and subsequent actions to enforce the judgment, including revival.