Contreras v. Felix
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Patricio Contreras and Jerusalem Gingco filed a suit to annul a mortgage executed by spouses Juan V. Molina and Teodora Arenas in favor of China Banking Corporation (Bank) and to recover damages. The Court of First Instance (CFI) declared the mortgage valid, absolved the Bank, and condemned the spouses Molina to pay various amounts to Gingco. Procedural History: The plaintiffs appealed the CFI decision, specifically questioning the validity of the mortgage and the Bank's non-indemnification. This Court modified the CFI decision, declaring the mortgage null and void as to one-half of the property belonging to Gingco and rescinded as to the other half belonging to the Molinas. It ordered all defendants to pay Gingco a specific amount plus monthly installments until delivery of certain properties. The case was remanded for execution. The Petition: Upon execution, the sheriff initially attempted to collect from the Bank. The CFI judge ordered that the Bank's liability was only one-third, which was paid. The other defendants were insolvent. The execution creditors sought an alias execution against the Bank for the unpaid balance, which was denied. Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus to compel the CFI to collect the full remaining balance from the Bank, arguing the Bank's liability was tortious and thus joint and several.
Issue(s)
Whether a final and executory judgment can be modified to change the nature of the defendants' liability from joint to solidary. Whether the phrase 'ordering all the defendants to pay' in a dispositive portion creates a solidary obligation in the absence of the words 'jointly and severally.'
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is denied. The Supreme Court cannot modify a final and executory judgment to correct alleged judicial errors. The dispositive portion of the judgment stands as the final ruling, and the China Banking Corporation's liability is considered joint, not solidary, as per the executed judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it is immutable and cannot be altered even by the court that rendered it. The power to correct clerical errors or omissions does not authorize the court to change the substance of the judgment or make the record say what the court did not adjudge, even if it had a clear right to do so initially. Changing the liability from joint to solidary is a matter of substance, not a mere clerical correction. Public policy demands that judgments reach a point of finality to end litigation, even at the risk of occasional errors. Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot modify its own final judgment from G.R. No. 76 Phil. 709 to insert solidarity. On Issue 2: In Philippine jurisdiction, it is a well-established doctrine that when a judgment does not expressly provide that defendants are liable 'jointly and severally,' the liability is merely joint (proportionate). This is in harmony with Articles 1137 and 1138 of the Civil Code, which require that solidarity must be expressly determined. The phrase 'all defendants' does not imply solidarity but merely identifies the parties bound by the judgment. Even if the underlying claim was based on a tort (Art. 1902), the claim is merged into the judgment. Applying Oriental Commercial Co. v. Abeto, the final judgment supersedes the original action and if it declares the obligation as merely joint, it cannot be executed otherwise regardless of the nature of the original contract or act.
Main Doctrine
A final and executory judgment cannot be modified in substance, even if there appears to be a judicial error, as only clerical errors may be corrected. The dispositive portion of a judgment, not the body of the decision, is controlling.