1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly asserts at the respective reliefs prayed for in those cases were different. He alleges that the Motion to Account involved the prayer for accounting of his and respondent's moneylending and car dealership businesses; while, the Dissolution case prayed for the dissolution of their community property and its distribution to them.[27] Petitioner also insists that the RTC-Tagum did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding respondent guilty of indirect contempt of court. He claims that the indirect contempt charge was initiated motu proprio by the RTC-Tagum such that he did not have to file a verified petition on the matter.[28] Finally, petitioner maintains that the denial of respondent's notice of appeal by the RTCTagum was proper.[29] The Resolution dated August 15, 2016 of the RTC-Tagum, relative to the Decision finding respondent guilty of indirect contempt and also ordering the forfeiture of the subject properties in favor of petitioner, was an interlocutory order, which was not appealable.[30] Respondents Arguments Respondent counters that the RTC-Tagum had no more jurisdiction over the final and executory judgment in the PPO case such that the eventual filing of the Motion to Account in the same case should have been dismissed outright.[31] She contends that by the filing of petitioner of his subsequent motions in the PPO case, after the decision therein had already been final and executory, had erroneously converted it into a case of distribution of properties, which was absurd and beyond the authority of the RTCTagum.[32] At the same time, respondent stresses that petitioner committed forum shopping when he filed the Motion to Account even when he had already filed a separate Dissolution case praying for the same remedies for accounting and distribution of properties.[33] She adds that after the RTC-Tagum ruled in favor of petitioner and forfeited in his favor the subject properties, petitioner then withdrew the Dissolution case. The act of withdrawal by the petitioner showed that after having secured one remedy from the RTC-Tagum, he sought the withdrawal of the other case. [34] Our Ruling The Petition lacks merit. Application of the principle of immutability of judgment in this case. At the outset, it is primordial to stress that the decision in the PPO case had long been final and executory before petitioner filed his Dissolution case on July 23, 2014. Such being the case, by virtue of the doctrine of immutability of judgment, this final and executory judgment of the RTC-Tagum can no longer be altered in any way by any court. While there are recognized exceptions to the rule on immutability of judgment, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65967 4/11