LINO ALABANZAS AND NELLY ALABANZAS, PETITIONERS, VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL BRANCH XLII, PROV­INCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS OCCI­DENT…

This is a petition for certiorari to annul the judgment of
respondent Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals)* dated July
29, 1983, in CA-G.R. CV No. 49537, with a prayer for a restraining order.

The records of the case reveal that Alicia Palma (now private
respondent), filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages against
Lino Alabanzas and Nelly Alabanzas before the Court of First Instance (now
Regional Trial Court) of Negros Occidental, Branch XLII, presided over by then
Judge Nestor Alampay, docketed as Civil Case No. 8612. The trial
court, after hearing, rendered judgment on June 18, 1971 in favor of defendants
Alabanzas, the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered
dismissing plaintiff’s complaint as well as the counter-claim of the
third-party defendant, Adoracion Palma, with respect to the defendants’
counter-­claim, plaintiff Alicia Palma herein is hereby ordered to pay the
defendants Lino Alabanzas and Nelie Alabanzas the sum of P4,000, as moral and
exemplary damages; and likewise the sum of P2,000, for defendant’s attorney’s
fees and their expenses of litigation and this award shall be increased to
P3,000 in case of appeal and to pay the costs.

“Upon payment to the plaintiff herein by the defendants of the
sum of P8,323.40 representing the remaining balance still unpaid for the stated
purchase of the portion of Lot 37-A occupied by them or the deposit of this sum
with the clerk of court for delivery to
the plaintiff, said plaintiff is hereby directed to execute the corresponding
deed of transfer of all her rights and interests covering said portion of Lot
37-A to the defendants spouses herein and/or upon her failure to do so, the
clerk of court is hereby authorized to execute such deed of transfer pursuant
to Rule 39, section 10 of the Rules of Court.

“From the aforesaid amount of P8,323.40 may be subtracted or
set off whatever sum of money may be due the defendants herein under this
judgment.

“SO ORDERED.”

Alicia Palma appealed the trial court’s decision to the
respondent Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals). Private respondent having failed to file her
brief within the reglementary period, and after an extension of ninety (90)
days, the Court of Appeals, in a resolution** dated
June 14, 1977, dismissed her appeal.

The dismissal became final on July 25, 1973. (See entry
of judgment, Annex “C”, Petition; p. 18, Rollo).

On October 4, 1973, the case was remanded to the trial court for
execution (Letter transmittal, Annex “D” to Petition, p. 20,
Rollo). The trial court ordered the
execution of its judgment on October 27, 1973 but said order was not fully
complied with until August 20, 1975 when the corresponding deed of sale was
executed by the Clerk of Court and duly annotated at the back of the title
(Last part of par. 2, Petition, p. 2, Rollo)

More than three (3) years after the dismissal of the appeal, upon
motion of herein respondents’ counsel, the respondent Court of Appeals resolved
to recall the records, reinstate the appeal and grant appellant another
extension of thirty (30) days within which to file her brief, on the basis of
the following grounds:

“1. The appellant herein did not know about the
dismissal of this appeal by the Court of Appeals until recently when she was informed that the defendants-appellees in
this case held a victory party
to celebrate their “winning of the case”;

‘2. That failure to file brief was due to the
gross misconduct of appellant’s counsel to whom appellant had paid P300.00 for
printing expenses of brief, and such negligence is not attributable to
appellant;

‘3. That the Decision appealed from the lower
court is patently unjust, irregular and a travesty of justice in the new
society.” (p. 21, Rollo)

[(CA resolution dated September 23, 1976,
Annex “E”, Petition, Rollo, pp. 21-22)]. Thereafter, on July 29, 1983, respondent Appellate Court rendered
a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby set aside and
reversed and another one is entered ordering the defendants-appellees to vacate
the property in question, to demolish their house standing thereon and to pay
the sum of P100.00 a month from July 10, 1966, all to be complied with within
ten (10) days from the issuance of the order of execution by the court of
origin. Defendants-appellees are also
ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of P2,500.00 as counsel fees. In turn, party defendant Adoracion Palma is hereby ordered to reimburse
the sum of P3,756.60 to the third-party plaintiffs representing the installment
payments she had received from the latter. No costs.”

The sole issue in this petition is whether the Court of Appeals
has jurisdiction to reconsider its own resolution dismissing an appeal long
after said resolution had become final
and executory and render another decision on the merits.

The petition is impressed with merit.

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 amend, much less revoke it (Turquieza v. Hernando, 97
SCRA 483 [1980]; Heirs of Patriaca v. CA, 124 SCRA 410 [1983]; Javier v.
Madamba, Jr., 174 SCRA 495 [1989]; Galindez v. Rural Bank Llanera, Inc., 175
SCRA 132 [1989]; Olympia International, Inc. v. CA, 180 SCRA 353 [1989]). Decisions which have long become final and
executory cannot be annulled by courts (United CMC Textile Workers Union v.
Labor Arbiter, 149 SCRA 424 [1987] and the appellate court is deprived of
jurisdiction to alter the trial court’s final judgment (Carbonel v. CA, 147
SCRA 656 [1987]; Republic v. Reyes, 155 SCRA 313 [1987]).

The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental
considerations of public and sound practice that at the risk of occasional
error, the judgments of the courts must become final at some definite date set
by law (Turquieza v. Hernando, supra; Heirs of Patriaca v. CA, supra;
Edra v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 179 SCRA 344 [1989]). Reopening of a case which has become final
and executory is disallowed
(Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Arciaga, 148 SCRA, 433 [1987]; Edra v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, supra.). The subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration cannot disturb the
finality of a judgment and restore jurisdiction which had already been lost (Pfleider v. Victorino, 98 SCRA 491
[1980]; Heirs of Patriaca v. CA, supra).

After the judgment has become final, no addition can be made
thereto and nothing can be done therewith except its execution; otherwise,
there can be no end to litigation, 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 maintainance of peace and order, by settling justiceable controversies with
finality (Farescal Vda. de Emnas v. Emnas, 95 SCRA 470 [1980]; Heirs of
Patriaca v. CA, supra).

Moreover, it is an equally well-settled rule that the client is bound by his
counsel’s conduct, negligence and mistake in handling the case, and the client
cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had his lawyer proceeded differently. (Vivero vs. Santos, 52 O.G. 1424; Tupas vs.
CA, 193 SCRA 597).

It is only in case of gross or palpable negligence of counsel
when the courts must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered
thereby. (Legarda vs. CA, 195 SCRA
418). In the present case, the private
respondents have not shown such carelessness or negligence in their lawyer’s
discharge of his duties to them as to justify a deviation from the rule that
“clients should be bound by the acts of their counsel, including his
mistakes.”

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the respondent Court of Appeals’
resolution dated September 3, 1976 and decision dated July 29, 1983 in AC-G.R.
CV No. 49537 are SET ASIDE as null and void and the decision of the Court of
First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Negros Occidental, Branch XLII
dated June 18, 1971 in Civil Case No. 8612, is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED, and the
restraining order earlier issued is MADE permanent.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Associate Justice
Porfirio V. Sison, and concurred in by Associate Justices Abdulwahid A. Bidin,
Marcelino R. Veloso and Desiderio P. Jurado.

** Fourth Division, composed of Associate Justices Edilberto Soriano, Manuel R. Barcelona, and Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr.