Practice question
A new judge believes a final civil judgment misapplied the law and proposes increasing the award solely to correct that perceived merits error. No recognized exceptional ground exists. Which is correct?
- A new judge automatically gets an unrestricted merits review
- The proposed substantive revision is barred by immutability in the stated circumstances
- Only the amount’s size determines whether finality applies
- The winning party’s request alone creates jurisdiction to revise
- A legal-error label is always a clerical correction
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/feb2025/gr_253218_2025.html — DOST Officials and Personnel v. COA, G.R. No. 253218, February 4, 2025, main decision on immutability, clerical errors, nonprejudicial nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments and post-finality circumstances.
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html — Rule 39, final-judgment enforcement and satisfaction framework, read with the recognized jurisprudential exceptions.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.