"x x x.
Ramos v. Court of Appeals,[29] which the petitioners cited to buttress their plea for the grant of their motion to recall entry of judgment, is not pertinent. There, the Court allowed a clarification through a nunc pro tuncamendment of what was actually affirmed through the assailed judgment “as a logical follow through of the express or intended operational terms” of the judgment.
In this regard, we stress that a judgment nunc pro tunc has been defined and characterized thuswise:
The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a new judgment and the ascertainment and determination of new rights, but is one placing in proper form on the record, the judgment that had been previously rendered, to make it speak the truth, so as to make it show what the judicial action really was, not to correct judicial errors, such as to render a judgment which the court ought to have rendered, in place of the one it did erroneously render, nor to supply nonaction by the court, however erroneous the judgment may have been. (Wilmerding vs. Corbin Banking Co., 28 South., 640, 641; 126 Ala.
Based on such definition and characterization, the petitioners’ situation did not fall within the scope of a nunc pro tunc amendment, considering that what they were seeking was not mere clarification, but the complete reversalin their favor of the final judgment and the reinstatement of the DARAB decision.
