HEIRS OF JOSEFINA A. PATRIACA, HEIRS OF ROSELLER A. PATRIACA, HEIRS OF ARLENE A. PATRIACA, HEIRS OF ROGER A. PATRIACA, HEIRS OF EVA PATRIACA, HEIRS OF DIANA A. PATRIACA, HEIRS O…

This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction to
restrain the Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court) from further
hearing Civil Case CA-G.R. No. 67434-R. Petitioners also pray for the lifting of the restraining order issued by the
Court of Ap­peals against the
sheriff of Manila from enforcing the writ of execution against private respondent Compania Maritima.

Petitioners are pauper-litigants and plaintiffs in a civil case
for recovery of compensatory damages filed against private respondent and
docketed as Civil Case No. 76308 of Branch I, Court of First Instance, Manila
(now Regional Trial Court). The trial court, after hearing, rendered judgment in favor of petitioners.^[1]

Private respondent appealed the trial court’s decision to the
Court of Appeals. The appeal was perfected on August 29, 1979. However, private respondent failed to
file its appellant’s brief within the reglementary
period, and the Court of Appeals, in a resolution dated June 17, 1981,
dismissed the appeal, which order of dismissal
became final on August 9, 1981.^[2]

Thereafter, the case was remanded
to the trial court for execution. A writ of execution was issued and
served upon private respondent, whose chief legal counsel then negotiated with
the petitioners’ counsel for the payment of
the judgment amount in installments.^[3]

During the pendency of the above
settlement negotiation, however, the Dinglasan Law
Office, as counsel for private respondent, filed with the Court of Appeals a
motion for reconsideration with prayer to admit defendant?appellant’s brief and an urgent motion to set aside entry of judgment and reinstate appeal.^[4]

The Court of Appeals in an
Order dated September 25, 1981
granted both motions filed by private respondent;^[5]
and also issued a restraining order to restrain the sheriff of Manila
from enforcing the writ of execution
against private respondent.^[6] Petitioners filed an urgent motion for
reconsideration alleging lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to
reinstate the appeal and to lift the entry of judgment, the decision having
become final and executory. But, the Court of Appeals
denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.^[7]

Hence, the instant
petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the resolutions
dated September 25, 1981 and February 4, 1982.

The petitioners contend that the respondent Court of Appeals
having last its jurisdiction over the case after its order dismissing the
appeal became final and executory and the case had been remanded to the
trial court for execution, its subsequent order reinstating the appeal was null
and void.

The Court finds merit in the petition. The Court of Appeals was
not justified in reinstating the appeal. It is well settled that once a
decision becomes final and executory, it is removed
from the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further alter
or amend, much less, revoke it. The doctrine of finality of judgment is
grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that
at the risk of occasional error, the judgments of courts must become final at
some definite date set by law.^[8]

Judgments of the Court of Appeals become final after the lapse of
fifteen (15) days from notice thereof, after which the Court loses jurisdiction
over the case. The subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration cannot
disturb the finality of a judgment, nor restore jurisdiction which had already
been lost.^[9]

After the judgment has become final, no addition can be made
thereto, and nothing can be done therewith except its execution; otherwise, there
would be no end to litigations, thus, setting at naught the main role of Courts
of Justice, which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the
maintenance of peace and order, by setting justiciable
controversies with finality.^[10]

WHEREFORE, the
resolutions of the respondent Court of Appeals dated September 25, 1981 and February 4, 1982 should be, as they
are hereby, ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. With costs against the private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, and
Escolin, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., on official leave.

De Castro, J., on sick leave.

^[1] Rollo, p. 3.

^[2] Id., p. 7.

^[3] Id., p. 3.

^[4] Rollo, p. 3.

^[5] Id., p. 12.

^[6] Id., p. 13.

^[7] Id., p. 14.

^[8] Turqueza vs. Hernando, 97 SCRA 483.

^[9] Pfleider vs. Victoriano,
98 SCRA 491.

^[10] Pariscal Vda. De Emmas vs. Emmas, 95 SCRA
471.