Briones Vasquez vs. CA, Rule39, p2, Newoutln
Briones Vasquez vs. CA, Rule39, p2, Newoutln
Briones Vasquez vs. CA, Rule39, p2, Newoutln
-Petitioner BRIONES-VASQUEZ claims the second exception, i.e., that her motion for clarificatory judgment is for the purpose of obtaining a nunc pro tunc amendment of the final and executory Decision of the Court of Appeals. -Nunc pro tunc judgments have been defined and characterized by this Court in the following manner: The office of a judgment nunc pro tunc is to RECORD SOME ACT OF THE COURT DONE AT A FORMER TIME WHICH WAS NOT THEN CARRIED INTO THE RECORD, AND THE POWER OF A COURT TO MAKE SUCH ENTRIES IS RESTRICTED TO PLACING UPON THE RECORD EVIDENCE OF JUDICIAL ACTION WHICH HAS BEEN ACTUALLY TAKEN. It may be used to make the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did not speak but ought to have spoken. If the court has not rendered a judgment that it might or should have rendered, or if it has rendered an imperfect or improper judgment, it has no power to remedy these errors or omissions by ordering the entry nunc pro tunc of a proper judgment. (15 R. C. L., pp. 622-623.) -WILMERDING VS. CORBIN BANKING CO., 28 SOUTH., 640, 641; 126 ALA., 268: The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is NOT THE RENDERING OF A NEW JUDGMENT AND THE ASCERTAINMENT AND DETERMINATION OF NEW RIGHTS, BUT IS ONE PLACING IN PROPER FORM ON THE RECORD, THE JUDGMENT THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY RENDERED, TO MAKE IT SPEAK THE TRUTH, so as to make it show what the judicial action really was, not to correct judicial errors, such as to render a judgment which the court ought to have rendered, in place of the one it did erroneously render, nor to supply nonaction by the court, however erroneous the judgment may have been. -PERKINS VS. HAYWOOD, 31 N. E., 670, 672.A nunc pro tunc entry in practice is an entry made now of something which was actually previously done, to have effect as of the former date. Its office is not to supply omitted action by the court, BUT TO SUPPLY AN OMISSION IN THE RECORD OF ACTION REALLY HAD, BUT OMITTED THROUGH INADVERTENCE OR MISTAKE. -From the above characterization of a nunc pro tunc judgment it is clear that the judgment Petitioner BRIONES-VASQUEZ sought through the motion for clarificatory judgment is outside its scope. Petitioners did not allege that the Court of Appeals actually took judicial action and that such action was not included in the Court of Appeals Decision by inadvertence. A nunc pro tunc judgment cannot correct judicial error nor supply nonaction by the court. -SINCE THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT THROUGH THE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT A NUNC PRO TUNC ONE, THE GENERAL RULE REGARDING FINAL AND EXECUTORY DECISIONS APPLIES. In this case, no motion for reconsideration having been filed after the Court of Appeals rendered its decision on June 29, 1995 and an entry of judgment having been made on July 17, 1996, the same became final and executory and, hence, is no longer susceptible to amendment. It, therefore, follows that the Court of Appeals did not act arbitrarily nor with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it issued the aforementioned Resolution denying petitioners motion for clarificatory judgment and the Resolution denying petitioners motion for reconsideration. Disposition. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The parties are directed to proceed upon the basis of the final Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated June 29, 1995, in CA-G.R. CV No. 39025, that the contract in question was an equitable mortgage and not a sale.