Accordingly, the Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals' ruling and reinstated the original penalty imposed by the public respondent, thereby underscoring the binding nature of final and executory decisions. [49] The ruling in Eusebio reinforces a fundamental tenet of procedural law: that a judgment which has attained finality is no longer subject to alteration, modification, or reversal, even by appellate courts, except under specific and narrowly defined exceptions. This principle is especially vital in cases involving judgments for indirect contempt, which are punitive in nature and rendered after due process. In the present case, this Court previously affirmed the decisions of the RTC and the CA in G.R. No. 225250, which found respondent guilty of indirect contempt. Despite the finality of this judgment, the RTC gravely erred in issuing its Order dated July 17, 2020, which effectively nullified the contempt ruling by lifting it and removing the penalties previously imposed. The respondent's subsequent attempt to comply with the RTC's Order cannot operate to invalidate or undo a judgment that has long attained finality. While the RTC couched its ruling as a recognition of respondent's alleged compliance, its practical effect was to nullify a final judgment, an act that constitutes an impermissible modification. This directly contravenes the doctrine of finality or immutability of judgments. As a result, the proceedings conducted by the RTC for the purpose of amending the dispositive portion of the final decision, specifically, the removal of the penalties imposed against respondent for his contemptuous acts, are void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction. The lower court has no authority to alter, revise, or disregard a final and executory ruling, particularly one which had been upheld by the Supreme Court, the highest tribunal of the land. By affirming the RTC's unauthorized modification of a final and executory judgment, the CA likewise committed grave abuse of discretion. It is well-settled that grave abuse of discretion arises when a court or tribunal acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner, thereby amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a legal obligation, and thereby equating to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. [50] Here, the CA erroneously upheld an RTC Order that effectively altered a judgment that had long attained finality. Such action runs afoul with the doctrine of immutability of judgments, which mandates that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct a perceived error. The CA's act of affirming the RTC's patently void order falls squarely within the ambit of grave abuse of discretion and warrants corrective action by this Court. Consequently, this Court finds that the CA gravely abused its discretion in affirming the RTC's Order that unlawfully disturbed a final and executory j