G.R. No. 191810 – 761 Phil. 223 – 112 OG No. 5 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Judgments; Immutability of Judgments – Second Motion for Reconsideration not allowed
In 1950, Carlos Go elected Filipino citizenship. In 1952, his son Jimmy Go was born. Jimmy’s birth certificate indicated that his parents are Filipinos but his citizenship is “FChinese.” In 2000, a deportation case was filed against Jimmy as it was alleged that he is an undesirable alien. In the same year, the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) ruled that Carlos belatedly elected Filipino citizenship hence his election was invalid and that made Jimmy a Chinese under the 1935 Constitution. In 2002, a deportation order was issued against Jimmy. Jimmy questioned the order of the BID before the RTC. In 2004, the RTC affirmed the Order of the BID. Jimmy went to the Court of Appeals. The CA affirmed the RTC. Jimmy went to the Supreme Court and the case was docketed as G.R. No. 167569-70. Pending the SC case, Jimmy filed another petition for prohibition against the BI before the Court of Appeals (this is the subject of this case, G.R. No. 191810). Eventually, the SC affirmed the CA in September 2009 (G.R. No. 167569-70). Jimmy filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. In October 2009, the CA dismissed Jimmy’s prohibition case against the BID on the ground that the September 2009 SC Decision rendered his deportation case final and executory. In August 2010, Jimmy filed a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, Jimmy elevated this case (G.R. No. 191810) to the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not Jimmy’s petition must prosper.
HELD: No. Firstly, Jimmy is guilty of forum shopping.
Secondly, the deportation order has already attained finality. Jimmy’s argument that it did not attain finality because he has a pending second motion for reconsideration is without merit. A second motion for reconsideration is not allowed. It is a prohibited motion. Record shows that the the SC in G.R. No. 167569-70 denied without action Jimmy’s second motion for reconsideration. Since the second motion was denied, the deportation order subject of G.R. No. 167569-70 has become final, immutable, and unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the modification of a final judgment.
SIDE ISSUE: Suppose there are errors of fact and law in the judgment, will that count as an exception?
No, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. This applies to all court levels from the MTC to the SC. The orderly administration of justice requires that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must reach a point of finality set by the law. The noble purpose is to write finis to dispute once and for all. This is a fundamental principle our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who exercise the power adjudication. Any act, which violates such principle, must immediately be struck down. Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments of what are ordinarily known as courts, but extends to all bodies upon which judicial powers had been conferred.
Are there any exceptions to the immutability rule?
Yes. They are (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
