Suan v. Unson
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case originated from a civil action for "Cancellation of Document, Recovery of Possession and Damages" filed by the petitioners against the private respondents. The trial court, after proceedings, rendered a decision on November 27, 1967, dismissing the petitioners' complaint and ordering them to jointly and severally pay moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees to the private respondents. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals. However, their appeal was dismissed on February 11, 1969, due to their failure to pay the docket fee and file the required printed Record on Appeal. Consequently, the trial court's decision became final and executory. A motion for execution was filed by the private respondents, and a Notice of Levy was issued by the respondent sheriff on May 26, 1969. The properties subject to the levy were subsequently sold at public auction on July 31, 1969. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a special civil action for prohibition with an application for a writ of preliminary injunction on July 17, 1969, assailing the trial court's decision and the subsequent notice of levy. They argued that the decision was null and void for lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court, however, found that the issues raised pertained to errors of judgment, not jurisdictional defects, and that the proper remedy of appeal had been lost due to the petitioners' failure to perfect it. The Court also noted that the petition was filed late and that the properties had already been sold, rendering the petition moot and academic.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for prohibition is the proper remedy to assail a judgment that has become final and executory. Whether the trial court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in awarding moral and exemplary damages. Whether the petition has become moot and academic.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court found no reversible error in the proceedings and upheld the finality of the trial court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of prohibition and the alleged lack of jurisdiction: The Court reiterated the basic principle that a petition for prohibition must be based on jurisdictional grounds. If a trial court acts with jurisdiction, any error committed in the exercise thereof is merely an error of judgment, reviewable only by a timely appeal. The issue of whether moral and exemplary damages were properly awarded is considered an error of judgment, not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore, prohibition is not the proper remedy when an appeal was available. On the finality of the judgment: The Court emphasized that the perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and executory. In this case, the petitioners' appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed due to their failure to pay the docket fee and file the Record on Appeal. Consequently, the trial court's decision became final and executory, and petitioners are precluded from questioning its validity. The doctrine of finality of judgments is grounded on public policy and sound practice, ensuring that judgments become final at a definite date. On the contention regarding the right to litigate: While petitioners invoked the case of Malonzo v. Galang, et al. to argue against penalties on the right to litigate, the Court found this argument inapplicable. The issue was not about the right to litigate itself, but about the failure to perfect an appeal from a decision that was rendered with jurisdiction. The principle that a final and executory judgment, even if erroneous, can no longer be modified applies here. On the issue of the trial court's jurisdiction and discretion regarding damages: The Court addressed the issue of whether moral and exemplary damages were properly awarded, clarifying that this is considered an error of judgment, not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore, prohibition is not the proper remedy when an appeal was available. On the petition becoming moot and academic: The Court noted that the properties subject to the Notice of Levy were already sold at public auction on July 31, 1969, and a Certificate of Sale was issued. This sale was duly registered. Given that the execution of the decision had already been consummated through the auction sale, the petition seeking to prohibit such execution and levy had become moot and academic. The prayer to enjoin the sheriff from executing the decision and levying properties could no longer be granted as the act sought to be prohibited had already occurred.
Main Doctrine
A petition for prohibition based on alleged lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction will not prosper if the issue raised is merely an error of judgment, for which the proper remedy is a timely appeal. Failure to perfect an appeal renders the judgment final and executory, precluding further questioning of its validity. Moreover, if the subject of the levy has already been sold at public auction, the petition becomes moot and academic.