GR 163186; (February, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163186 ; February 28, 2007
EMERLITO F. AGUILA and DANILO D. REYES, Petitioners, vs. CARMEN R. BALDOVIZO, EDGAR R. BALDOVIZO, and CARMELO R. BALDOVIZO, Respondents.
FACTS
On April 19, 1993, a van driven by Marlun Lisbos, registered under petitioner Danilo Reyes but operated by petitioner Emerlito Aguila, sideswiped Fausto Baldovizo while he was crossing a pedestrian lane on EDSA. Fausto later died from his injuries. His heirs filed a civil case for damages against Lisbos, Reyes, Aguila, and the vehicle’s insurer. The trial court, after petitioners waived their right to present evidence, rendered a decision on March 7, 2000, holding all defendants jointly and severally liable. Petitioners filed a petition for relief from judgment, which was denied. The judgment became final and executory.
Subsequently, the trial court issued an Amended Decision dated August 13, 2001, which merely deleted the name of the driver, Marlun Lisbos, from the dispositive portion of the original decision, as his inclusion was deemed inadvertent. Petitioners Aguila and Reyes then appealed this Amended Decision to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners have the right to appeal the Amended Decision after the original decision had already become final and executory.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Amended Decision did not reopen the period for appeal. A final and executory judgment is immutable and unalterable. The amendment made by the trial court was merely a clerical correction—the deletion of the name of a party who was not properly before the court due to lack of service of summons. This correction did not affect the substantive rights and obligations of the remaining parties, Aguila and Reyes. Their solidary liability, as the employer/operator and registered owner of the vehicle, remained unchanged.
Since the original decision had attained finality, the Amended Decision, being a simple clerical correction, did not supersede it nor provide a fresh period to appeal. Petitioners’ attempt to revive their lapsed right to appeal through the Amended Decision was improper. The Court also upheld their solidary liability based on Articles 2180 and 2184 of the Civil Code, holding an employer solidarily liable with his employee for quasi-delicts, and the registered owner of a vehicle responsible for damages caused by its operation.