G. R. No. L-11142. December 24, 1957

In Special  Proceedings No.  684 of the  Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for  the settlement of the intestate estate of the deceased Isidro  P. Aurelio,  the First National Surety  & Assurance Co., on  October 12, 1955, presented a claim against the estate for the total amount of P14,030.10, allegedly duo claimant under its Bond No.  LES-080, which it had  issued as surety for  the deceased  in favor of the Republic of the Philippines.  The deceased had  signed, with two other persons, an indemnity contract agreeing to Pay, jointly and severally, to the surety company any losses, damages, payments, costs and expenses of whatever kind and nature,  including attorney’s  fees and premiums for renewals or extensions.  The claimed amount of P4,030.10 purportedly represents the following items:

(1) P11,717.48  as the amount being demanded from claimant by Philippine National Bank, through the  Bureau of Commerce  under said  Bond No. LES-080;
(2) P555.00 as premiums  on said bond for three years; and
(3) P1,757.62  as  attorney’s fees.

On October  26,  1955, the  lower court  issued  an order approving the surety company’s   claim  “in the  sum of P11,717.48” and ordered  the Administrator  to  pay the same out of the  estate  of the deceased within  sixty days. The Administrator  sought  reconsideration  of the order on the ground that the claim in question  was contingent on claimant’s  paying the principal  obligation;  that  such payment had not yet been made; and that the estate had already paid a portion of the obligation to the Philippine National Bank and was taking steps to  settle the balance of the  liability.   The  court,  however, found that  the obligation of the deceased to the claimant surety company was  based on  their  indemnity agreement  under the  provisions  of  which the deceased agreed to pay  the surety company “as soon as demand is received from the creditor”; hence,  it denied  the motion for reconsideration,  and  held that  “the claim of the First National Surety & Assurance Co.,  Inc. is in order  and should  be  paid by  the  estate of the deceased”  (Order of November 25, 1955).  No appeal having  been taken  from  the  two  orders approving  the claim, the same  became final and executory.

On June 22, 1956,  the  claimant surety company filed a petition with the trial court, alleging’ that the Administrator had already  paid  the  sum of  P11,718.00 on account of its claim,  and praying that he b3 ordered to pay  the remaining  balance of P3,322.18  with  interest until  full payment.  The administrator opposed this petition aver- ring  that the claim of the surety company was approved in the amount of  P11,717.48, and the estate having  paid said  amount, payment of further sums  should be  denied.  Whereupon, the  court,  on July 6, 1956, issued an order stating  that the  surety company’s claim  against the estate was  the amount of P14,030.10 and it  was  only  through clerical error that the court, in  its  order  of October 26, 1955, limited its amount to P11,717.48; and amended said order “in the sense that the amount  to be paid  by the said Administrator is P14,030.10  and considering the  interest which the  money  should  earn, there is  a  balance in  the amount of P3,322.18 which should be paid to the petitioner by the said Administrator”, and ordered the Administrator  to pay  P3,322.18  in addition to that already  paid, with interest  at the rate of P4.35 daily  from  June 22, 1956, until the same is fully paid”.   The Administrator filed a motion for  reconsideration, stressing that the  order of October 26, 1955 having become final  and unappealable, and having already been executed by his payment to the claimant company of the amount of P11,718.00, the court no longer  had  jurisdiction to amend  said order.  But  the motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, the Administrator filed  the  present petition for  certiorari with  this Court.

Assuming that the  claim of the  respondent  company should  have been approved  for more  than the amount of P11,718.00,  and  that the  lower court  committed  an error in  approving said claim for only the sum  of P11,717.48, the  order  of  approval  has,  however  become  final  and unappealable, and beyond the power of the court below to amend or modify.   The court sought to justify the amendment (increasing the amount awarded) on the theory that it committed a simple  clerical  error when it approved the claim  for P11,717.48.   But  such  amendment  can not be said to merely correct  a clerical mistake; for  the original order approved the claim in question  for P11,717.48 only, and to  increase the same by 3,322.18, plus interests, is to effect  a substantial  and material change in the original order, under which the estate had already acquired  the right to pay the claimant P11.717.48  and no  more.  Distinguishing the court’s power to correct errors and omissions in final judgments from its power to repair  a judicial error or inaction therein, Freeman makes  the  following comment:

“The general power  to correct clerical errors and omissions  does not authorize  the court to repair  its  own inaction, to  make the record  and  judgment  say  what  the court  did  not adjudge, although it had a  clear right to do so. The  court can  not under the guise  of correcting  its record  put   upon  it  an  order or judgment it never  made or rendered, or add  something to either which was not originally  included  although it might and should have so ordered  or adjudged in the  first instance.  It can  not thus repair its own  lapses  and omissions to  do what it could legally  and  properly  have done  at the   right  time.   A court’s mistake in leaving” out of its decision something which it ought to have put in,  and something in issue of which it intended but failed to dispose, is a judicial  error, not a  mere clerical misprision,  and can not  be corrected  by  adding to the  entered judgment the omitted  matter on  the  theory of making the entry conform to the actual judgment entered.”   (Freeman on Judgments, see. 141, Vol.  I, p.  273)

Pursuant to the above rule, we held  in Marasigan vs. Ronquillo, 94  Phil.,  237,  that  “the  rule  is absolute  that after a judgment becomes final,  by the  expiration  of the period  provided by the rules within  which it so becomes, no further amendment or correction can be  made  by the court  except  for clerical errors or mistakes”.  And  in Halili vs. Public Service Commission, 98 Phil., 357, we said that the mere fact  that the  decision does not conform to the evidence presented is not a justification for an  amendment of the decision;  and that rights acquired by virtue of a decision should not be revoked under the pretext of amendment.

The respondent  company  points  to the  lower  court’s order of November 25, 1955  (denying petitioner’s  motion to reconsider its earlier order of October 26,  1955 approving the claim of P11,717.48), the  dispositive portion  of which  says that “the  claim  of the  First National  Surety & Assurance Co., Inc. is in  order and should be paid  by the estate of the deceased”; and  argues that as the  correct amount of its claim is P14,030, with interests, that is the amount that the estate must pay under this  second order. The argument is untenable, for in said order of November 25, 1955,  the lower  court   simply rejected petitioner’s theory that he could  be made to answer for the surety company’s claim only after the latter had paid the creditor and not before, on  the ground  that the estate’s liability is based on an express provision in the  indemnity agreement between claimant and the  deceased that indemnity will  be made “as  soon as  demand  is received from the creditor * *  *”.  The order in  question  did  not  state that the surety  company’s claim, approved  at P11,717.48 in the court’s first order of  October 26, 1955, had been increased to a bigger  amount on the other hand,  it still referred to the claim  of the  company as “in the amount of P11,717.48”.

If respondent had wanted the order of October 26, 1955 amended so as to correct the amount of its approved claim, it should  have promptly called the attention of the court to that matter and asked for the correction of the amount allowed.  Only respondent, however., failed to take this step; the order approving its claim for a lesser amount became final and  executory (it has  in fact been fully executed by payment of the Administrator of the amount of P11,718.00) ; and thereafter, it was too late, and beyond the jurisdiction of  the trial  court,  to  repair its  error by  substantially amending  an already final and executed  judgment (Carla Pirovano, et  al. vs. Canizares, G. R. L-9431, May 17, 1957).

The Order appealed from is therefore’, set  aside.  Costs against respondent First National Surety & Assurance Co. So  ordered.

Paras,  C.  J., Bengzon, Padilla,  Montemayor, Reyes, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,  Concepcion,  Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.