G.R. No. 176596 -

Ruling

Accordingly, the DOJ resolutions became final and executory after the lapse of the period for assailing the same in the CA. Thus, we find no reversible error committed by the CA in dismissing the petition for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final on some definite date fixed by law. [27] The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render its execution unjust and inequitable. [28] None of the exceptions is present to warrant a review. In Peña v. Government Service Insurance System , [29] we held that: x x x it is axiomatic that final and executory judgments can no longer be attacked by any of the parties or be modified, directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land. Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so also the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of the case. [30] x x x x The rule on finality of decisions, orders or resolutions of a judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body is " not a question of technicality but of substance and merit," the underlying consideration therefore, being the protection of the substantive rights of the winning party. Nothing is more settled in law than that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. [31] In light of the above discussion, we find no need to discuss petitioner's other arguments. WHEREFORE , the petition for review is hereby DENIED . The Decision dated August 30, 2006 and the Resolution dated February 8, 2007 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED.