REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF…

Republic versus Central Surety and Insurance Company

The Case

This is a motion to modify judgment filed by the Central Surety and Insurance Company, asking the Supreme Court to correct certain details in its earlier decision. The Republic of the Philippines had sued the Surety and its bond department manager, and the Surety in turn filed a third-party complaint against several individuals. The case matters because it shows how a court may amend its own judgment to conform to the record, and it fixes the date of filing, the identity of the third-party defendants, and the exact terms of the award of interest and attorney's fees.

Procedural History

The Republic filed suit against the Surety and its manager. The Surety then filed a third-party complaint against Po Kee Kam, Tony Go, Go Siu Eng, and Jao Yan alias Go Liao Lian. The trial court issued an order dismissing the third-party complaint, and also rendered a decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court rendered its decision on October 26, 1968. The Surety then filed a motion to modify that judgment on November 13, 1968. The Court required the Republic to comment, and the Republic offered no objection. The Court also required counsel for the third-party defendants to comment, but no comment was filed. The Court resolved the motion by modifying its decision.

Facts

On June 20, 1963, the Republic of the Philippines filed suit against the Central Surety and Insurance Company and its manager of the bond department, Casimiro Mangoba. On July 30, 1963, the Surety filed a third-party complaint, with leave of court, against Po Kee Kam, Tony Go, Go Siu Eng, and Jao Yan alias Go Liao Lian.

The trial court issued an order dated December 2, 1963 dismissing the third-party complaint, and a decision dated December 3, 1963. The Supreme Court's decision of October 26, 1968 set aside the dismissal and modified the trial court's decision.

The Surety then moved to modify the judgment, asking that the date in the statement of the case be corrected to June 20, 1963, that Go Siu Eng and Jao Yan be named as third-party defendants, and that the clause on interest and attorney's fees be added to the dispositive portion. The Republic offered no objection, and the third-party defendants filed no comment.

Issues

• Whether or not the date stated in the decision should be corrected to June 20, 1963, the date the complaint was actually filed.
• Whether or not Go Siu Eng and Jao Yan alias Go Liao Lian should be specifically named as third-party defendants.
• Whether or not the clause on interest at twelve percent per annum compounded quarterly and attorney's fees of fifteen percent should be added to the dispositive portion.

Applicable Provisions

No statutory provision is quoted in the decision. The Court relies on the record and on the grounds stated in the motion to modify judgment, finding them meritorious because sustained by the record.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court granted the correction. The first sentence of the decision was made to read: "On June 20, 1963 the Republic of the Philippines filed suit against the Central Surety and Insurance Company and the latter's manager of the bond department, Casimiro Mangoba."

On the second issue, the Court granted the correction. The fourth paragraph was made to read that the Surety filed a third-party complaint against Po Kee Kam, Tony Go, Go Siu Eng, and Jao Yan alias Go Liao Lian.

On the third issue, the Court granted the addition. The dispositive portion now orders the third-party defendants to pay the Surety whatever sums the latter will pay to the Republic, plus interest at twelve percent per annum compounded quarterly from the filing of the complaint, and attorney's fees of fifteen percent of the total amount as prayed for in the third-party complaint.

Doctrine

A court may modify its own judgment to conform to the record where the grounds are meritorious and sustained by the record. The date of filing of the complaint, the identity of the third-party defendants, and the terms of the award of interest and attorney's fees must accurately reflect the pleadings and the prayer. Where a party offers no objection and the adverse party files no comment, the Court may grant the correction.

Disposition

The Court granted the motion and modified its decision accordingly, with costs assessed against the Surety in favor of the Republic and against the third-party defendants in favor of the Surety.

Remember This

A judgment may be modified to conform to the record where the grounds are meritorious and sustained by the record. Examiners use this case to test the power of a court to amend its own judgment and the accuracy of the dispositive portion.