Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
March 2003, petitioner Bled an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to
Admit Amended Petition, which the Court of Appeals dismissed. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
A. Whether or not the CA committed serious and reversible error in dismissing the petition on the
ground of a technicality, despite the petitioners compliance with its resolution dated 11 December
2002.
B. Whether or not the clerical error in the fallo or the dispositive portion of Judge Alumbres Order was
substantial in nature.
RULING:
A. YES. In this case, the Court finds the petitioners failure to implead the People of the Philippines
as respondent not so grave as to warrant dismissal of the petition. After all, petitioner rectified his
error by moving for reconsideration and filing an Amended Petition, impleading the People of the
Philippines as respondent.
Further, this Court has repeatedly declared that the failure to implead an indispensable party is
not a ground for the dismissal of an action. In such a case, the remedy is to implead the non-party
claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by order of the court, on motion of the party
or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just. If the
petitioner/plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the
latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for petitioners/plaintiffs failure to comply.
In this case, the Court of Appeals should have granted petitioners motion for reconsideration and
given due course to the petition in view of petitioners subsequent compliance by filing an
Amended Petition, impleading the People of the Philippines as respondent. Technicalities may be
set aside when the strict and rigid application of the rules will frustrate rather than promote justice.
B. NO. The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the fallo, or the dispositive part,
and the body of the decision or order, the fallo prevails on the theory that the fallo is the final
order and becomes the subject of execution, while the body of the decision merely contains the
reasons or conclusions of the court ordering nothing. However, where one can clearly and
unquestionably conclude from the body of the decision that there was a mistake in the dispositive
portion, the body of the decision will prevail. Thus, in Spouses Rebuldea v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, the Court held that the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion when it corrected the
dispositive portion of its decision to make it conform to the body of the decision, and to rectify the
clerical errors which interchanged the mortgagors and the mortgagee.
In this case, considering the clear finding of the trial court that the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioner in the charges for Homicide and Frustrated
Homicide, while the two other charges for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Violation of the
Omnibus Election Code require further evidence, it is only just and proper to correct the
dispositive portion to reflect the exact findings and conclusions of the trial court. Thus, in
accordance with the findings of the trial court, Criminal Case No. 94-5036 (Frustrated Homicide)
and Criminal Case No. 94-5038 (Homicide) should be dismissed, while Criminal Case No. 945037 (Illegal Possession of Firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866) and Criminal Case No.
24-392 (Violation of Section 261(Q) of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to Section 32 of
Republic Act No. 7166) should be set for further trial.