I. Introduction

In Philippine remedial law, few phrases are invoked as often—and as confidently—as:

“The judgment is already final and executory. It can no longer be appealed.”

But is that always the end of the road? Can a Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision that has already become final and executory still find its way to the Court of Appeals (CA)?

The short answer is: ordinarily, no—ordinary appeal is barred—but in specific, exceptional ways, yes, the case (or its judgment) can still be brought before the CA, not through a standard appeal but through extraordinary remedies like annulment of judgment and, in very exceptional instances, certiorari, as well as through challenges to post-judgment orders.

This article walks through:

What “final and executory” really means
The doctrine of immutability of judgments
The usual modes of elevating an RTC case to the CA
What happens when the decision has already become final
The exceptional remedies that still allow CA intervention
Practical bar/exam and practice pointers

II. What Does “Final and Executory” Mean?

A judgment becomes final when it is no longer subject to appeal or motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period.

It becomes executory once finality is attained and entry of judgment is made, and a writ of execution may then be issued as a matter of right.

In the RTC context (civil cases):

Ordinary appeal (Rule 41) from the RTC to the CA must be taken within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order (or from notice of denial of a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration).
This period may be extended in some instances (e.g., additional time to file a record on appeal where allowed, or extensions to file petition for review), but once the period lapses without appeal, the decision becomes final.
When entry of judgment is made in the RTC, the case is said to have attained finality in that court.

Once that happens, the general rule is that the judgment is immutable.

III. The Doctrine of Finality and Immutability of Judgments

The doctrine of immutability of judgments provides that:

Once a decision has become final and executory, it may no longer be amended, modified, or reversed, even if the modification is meant to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or law.

This doctrine is grounded on:

Stability of judicial decisions
Respect for the orderly administration of justice
Public policy against endless litigations

However, this doctrine is not absolute. Jurisprudence recognizes limited exceptions, such as:

To correct clerical errors – Corrections that do not involve the court’s judgment on the merits (e.g., mis-typed names, numbers).
To make nunc pro tunc entries – To record what the court actually decided but failed to enter properly due to inadvertence.
To void a judgment that is null and void – For instance, decisions rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the person, or in flagrant violation of due process.
Supervening events – Where subsequent events make execution unjust or inequitable, the court may modify how the judgment is executed, although not usually the judgment itself.

These exceptions become crucial when discussing whether, and how, a “final and executory” RTC decision can still end up in the CA.

IV. Usual Modes of Elevating RTC Decisions to the Court of Appeals

Under the Rules of Court, the CA reviews RTC decisions primarily through appeals and special civil actions:

Ordinary Appeal (Rule 41)
- From an RTC decision rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
- Mode: Notice of appeal filed with the RTC.
- Period: 15 days from notice of judgment (or from notice of denial of a motion for new trial / reconsideration).
Petition for Review (Rule 42)
- From an RTC decision rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction (e.g., RTC acting on appeal from MTC).
- Mode: Verified petition for review filed with the CA.
- Period: 15 days from notice of judgment or denial of motion for reconsideration, extendible for another 15 days (and sometimes meritorious one-time additional extension).
Annulment of Judgments of RTC (Rule 47)
- A direct, independent action filed with the CA to annul a final RTC judgment on limited grounds.
Special Civil Actions (Rule 65)
- Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus filed originally with the CA against acts or orders of the RTC (among other tribunals), to correct jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion.

The first two (Rules 41 and 42) are ordinary modes of appeal. Once the RTC decision has become final and executory, these ordinary appeals are no longer available.

That’s why the question arises: what about Rule 47 (annulment) and Rule 65 (certiorari)? And what about orders issued after finality?

V. Once the RTC Decision is Final and Executory: What is Barred?

Once a decision is final and executory:

No more ordinary appeal (Rule 41 or Rule 42).
No more motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial in the RTC.
The CA cannot acquire appellate jurisdiction over the case through the usual modes of appeal whose reglementary periods have lapsed.

So if by “elevated to the Court of Appeals” the party means filing an ordinary appeal against the RTC decision itself, the answer is no. Finality bars that.

However, the story does not end there, because the law reserves extraordinary remedies for highly exceptional situations.

VI. Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47): The Primary Door to the CA After Finality

If a party lost the right to appeal (whether by his own negligence or through circumstances beyond his control) and the RTC decision has entered finality, he may still go to the CA via Rule 47 – Annulment of Judgment.

1. Nature of Annulment of Judgment

It is an independent, original action filed directly with the Court of Appeals.
It is not a continuation of the original case; it is a new civil action that attacks a final RTC judgment.
It is equitable and extraordinary, available only when ordinary remedies (like appeal, new trial, relief from judgment) are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

2. Judgments Subject to Annulment

Only final judgments or final orders of the RTC may be annulled under Rule 47.
Interlocutory orders cannot be directly annulled here.

In other words, Rule 47 presupposes finality. Unlike appeals which require that the judgment is not yet final, annulment is precisely designed for final judgments.

3. Grounds for Annulment

Rule 47 limits the grounds to:

Lack of jurisdiction
- Over the subject matter (RTC had no authority to hear the type of case).
- Over the person of the defendant (e.g., absence of proper service of summons).
- Or other jurisdictional defects making the judgment void.
Extrinsic fraud
- Fraud that prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his case (e.g., concealment of the proceedings, being misled into not attending, etc.).
- It must be fraud that could not have been raised in a motion for new trial or appeal.

Intrinsic fraud (e.g., perjured testimony, falsified documents presented at trial) is not a ground for annulment.

4. Prescriptive Periods

For extrinsic fraud: action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery.
For lack of jurisdiction: the action may be filed before it is barred by laches. There is no fixed period in years, but undue delay can bar the action.

5. Key Effects

If the CA grants annulment:

The RTC judgment is set aside.
The CA may order the case remanded to the RTC for retrial or further proceedings as justice requires.
Rights of innocent third parties who relied in good faith on the final RTC judgment (e.g., buyers in good faith) are generally protected.

Thus, Rule 47 is the clearest doctrinal basis for saying that a “final and executory” RTC decision may still be brought to the CA—but not by appeal; instead, by annulment of judgment on very specific grounds.

VII. Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) Against a “Final” RTC Judgment

Another way a case can reach the CA after an RTC decision is deemed “final” is through Rule 65 – Petition for Certiorari, which is also an original action, not an appeal.

1. General Rule: Certiorari is Not a Substitute for Appeal

The standard doctrine:

Certiorari will not lie to correct errors of judgment (like misappreciation of evidence or misinterpretation of law).
It cannot substitute for a lost appeal where appeal was an adequate, speedy, and plain remedy.

So ordinarily, if a party lost appeal due to his own negligence, he cannot simply resort to certiorari.

2. When Certiorari May Still Be Available

Certiorari lies where:

The RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
With grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
And there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Although certiorari is supposed to be filed within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the denial of a motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court and CA have in rare cases relaxed this rule when:

The assailed judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction, or
There are exceptional, compelling reasons deeply rooted in due process and equity.

This is unusual and highly discretionary. Courts emphasize that finality of judgment does not legalize a void judgment. Thus, even a “final and executory” judgment may, in theory, be nullified via certiorari if it is fundamentally void for want of jurisdiction or due process.

Still, as a practical rule, if the issue is jurisdictional and the judgment is already final, the more appropriate and structured remedy is usually annulment of judgment under Rule 47, not a late certiorari.

VIII. Petition for Relief from Judgment (Rule 38) and Its Relation to CA Review

Another remedy related to final judgments is petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38). This is:

Filed with the same court that rendered the judgment (i.e., the RTC itself).
Grounds: fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence (FAME).
Periods:
- Within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment or final order; and
- Not more than 6 months from entry of such judgment or final order.

Petition for relief does not itself bring the case to the CA, but:

If the RTC denies the petition for relief, that denial may then be appealed to the CA (if within period), or assailed via certiorari on jurisdictional grounds.

So in practice, a final and executory RTC decision might still ultimately be involved in CA proceedings via this chain:

RTC final judgment → petition for relief in RTC → denial of petition for relief → appeal or certiorari to CA.

However, by the time we say “final and executory” in strict sense (entry of judgment, writ of execution issued), the window for petition for relief may already be closing or closed, because of its strict 6-month outer limit.

IX. Post-Judgment Orders and Execution: Still Reviewable by the CA

Even after an RTC decision becomes final and executory, the court continues to issue post-judgment orders, such as:

Orders granting or denying a motion for execution
Orders regarding garnishment, levy, or sale of properties
Orders on satisfaction of judgment or quashing/recalling writs

These orders, although issued after finality, may independently be:

Appealed, if they are final orders in themselves (depending on the nature of the case and rules), or
Challenged via Rule 65 (certiorari) before the CA if alleged to be issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

Important distinction:

You are not appealing the decision itself anymore (that is final).
You are questioning how that decision is executed or implemented, or whether the RTC acted within its authority in post-judgment proceedings.

Thus, a litigant may still “elevate” issues arising after finality to the CA, even if the main judgment is already final and beyond appeal.

X. Practical Themes: When Can the CA Still Get Involved?

Let’s synthesize the above into more intuitive categories.

1. Absolutely Closed Door: Ordinary Appeal

If the period to appeal has lapsed, you cannot file:
- Notice of appeal (Rule 41)
- Petition for review (Rule 42)
The CA cannot acquire jurisdiction through these modes once finality has set in.

2. Narrowly Open Door: Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47)

Available only for final RTC judgments.
Filed directly with the Court of Appeals.
Grounds strictly limited to:
- Lack of jurisdiction, or
- Extrinsic fraud.
Subject to time limits and equitable considerations (laches).
Not a remedy to correct simple legal or factual errors.

3. Tiny Trapdoor: Certiorari (Rule 65)

May be invoked in rare and exceptional cases:
- Grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction not correctible by appeal.
Typically must be filed within 60 days, but the Court has, in extraordinary settings, dealt with void judgments even after long lapses of time.
Still, courts repeatedly warn: certiorari is not a substitute for appeal.

4. Side Windows: Post-Judgment Orders

Orders in the course of execution or satisfaction of judgment can themselves be the subject of:
- Appeal (if final in character), or
- Certiorari to the CA.
Here, the CA is not revisiting the merits of the RTC judgment, but supervising whether post-judgment actions remain lawful and within jurisdiction.

XI. Policy Considerations

Why does the law allow these “escape hatches” from final judgments?

To prevent grave injustice when a judgment is void or obtained through extrinsic fraud.
To protect the integrity of the judicial process, where the losing party was effectively denied their day in court.
To balance finality and fairness—public policy favors the stability of judgments, but not at the price of enforcing a null or fraud-tainted decision.

At the same time, courts are vigilant against the abuse of these remedies as delaying tactics. That is why:

Grounds are limited and strictly construed.
Deadlines and equitable doctrines like laches are enforced.
Erroneous judgments that are not void are generally left standing once final, even if they might be legally or factually mistaken.

XII. Bar and Practice Pointers

Always distinguish between “appeal” and “other modes of review.” When the question is “Can a final and executory RTC decision still be appealed to the CA?” the answer is strictly no. When it is “Can it still be elevated to the CA in any way?” the fuller answer is yes, in very limited ways (Rule 47, Rule 65, plus post-judgment orders).
Identify if the judgment is void or voidable.
- Void judgment → lack of jurisdiction or serious denial of due process → potentially subject to annulment or even certiorari despite finality.
- Voidable or erroneous judgment → finality generally stops any correction.
Check timelines carefully.
- Appeal periods (Rule 41/42).
- 60 days / 6 months in Rule 38.
- 4-year and laches considerations in Rule 47.
- 60 days (as a rule) in Rule 65.
Exhaust appropriate remedies in sequence.
- Motion for reconsideration / new trial → appeal → extraordinary remedies only when appeal or other plain, speedy, adequate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the party.
Be precise in pleadings.
- Don’t call a Rule 47 action “appeal.” It is an original action.
- Don’t use Rule 65 to retry facts or revisit evidence. Limit to jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion.

XIII. Conclusion

So: Can a “final and executory” RTC decision still be elevated to the Court of Appeals?

Not by ordinary appeal. The door of Rule 41/42 closes once finality sets in.
But yes, in exceptional cases, it can still reach the CA:
- Through Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 (for lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud);
- Through Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 in rare situations involving grave abuse of discretion or void judgments;
- And through challenges to post-judgment orders and execution proceedings that may themselves be reviewable by the CA.

The legal system thus keeps a delicate balance: judgments must be final to maintain stability, yet there must remain narrow pathways to justice where a judgment is fundamentally flawed.