G.R. No. 189418 -

Ruling

Accordingly, the Decision dated December 29, 2008 of the CA had already become final and executory and no longer subject to review. Nothing is more settled in .law than that once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality o[ the resolution of his case. The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to 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 settling justiciable controversies with finality. [13] Exceptions to the immutability of final judgment are allowed only under the most extraordinary of circumstances. [14] The instant case cannot be considered an exception especially-when the petitioners did not even deem it appropriate to give any compelling reason for the late filing of their motion for reconsideration with the CA. . Worse, the petitioners even tried to conceal the same by alleging that they received a copy of the said Decision dated December 29, 2008 only on February 28, 2009. This claim, however, is belied by the Registry Return Receipt which indicated that the petitioners' counsel received a copy of the assailed decision on January 5, 2009. This finding of fact by the CA deserves more credence. Undoubtedly, as between the Registry Return Receipt and the petitioners' bare assertion, the former is more credible. It bears stressing that litigations should, and do, come to an end. Public interest demands an end to every litigation and a belated effort to reopen a case that has already attained finality will serve no purpose other than to delay the administration of justice. [15] In any case, even if we are to disregard the belated filing of the petitioners' motion for reconsideration with the CA, the instant petition would still merit dismissal. A perusal of the allegations, issues and arguments set forth by the petitioners would readily show that the CA did not commit any reversible error as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction. The petitioners' insistence that their complaint filed with the RTC could not be dismissed on the ground of prescription on account of the respondents' failure to raise the said defense in their motion to dismiss is untenable. It is fitting to remind the petitioners that