On December 17,  1948,  Alfredo M. Velayo as  assignees of the insolvent Commercial Airlines,  Inc., instituted an action against Shell Company of the Philippine Islands, Ltd., in the Court of First Instance of  Manila for injunction and 'damages (Civil Case No. 6966).   On October 26, 1951, a  complaint  in  intervention was filed by Alfonso Sycip, Paul Sycip, and Yek Trading Corporation, and on November 14, 1951,  by Mabasa & Company.

After trial wherein  plaintiff presented evidence  in his behalf, but none in  behalf of  intervenors, the Court rendered decision dismissing  plaintiff's complaint as well as those filed by the intervenors.  On March 31,1954, counsel for  plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,  appeal bond,  and record on appeal in behalf only of plaintiff even if they also represent the intervenors, which  in due time  were approved, the Court instructing its clerk to forward the record on appeal to the Supreme Court together with all the evidence presented in the  case.  This instruction was actually  complied with.

On August 31, 1954, the Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court notified counsel of plaintiff that  the  record as well as the evidence have already been  received and that they should file their brief within 45 days from receipt of the notice. On November 2, 1954, counsel filed  their brief for appellants.  On November 6, 1954, or 7 months after the judgment had become final as against the intervenors, and 4 days after counsel for appellants had submitted the latter's brief, counsel for intervenors filed with the Supreme Court a petition for correction of the record on appeal in order to enable them to insert therein the names of the intervenors  as appellants, the  petition being  based,  among others,  on the  ground that the  omission  of the names of the intervenors in said record  on appeal was due to the mistake of the typist who prepared it while the attorney in charge was on vacation.  The petition was vigorously opposed  by counsel for defendant, contending that the same would serve no purpose, whatsoever considering that the intervenors  had not presented any evidence in support of their claim, aside from the fact that the alleged absence of  the attorney  of the  intervenors  cannot constitute a justification for the alleged omission of the intervenors as appellants.  On November 12, 1954, the Court denied the petition.  Counsel for intervenors moved for a reconsideration of the order, but the same was denied.

On November 19,  1954, counsel for intervenors  filed with the lower court a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the Rules  of Court,  wherein  he reiterated the same grounds  they  alleged in  the petition  for correction  filed by them in the Supreme  Court, which petition was denied on November  27, 1954, for having been filed outside the reglementary period fixed in said Rule 38.  Counsel  filed a motion for reconsideration, which was again denied, the Court stating that "no judgment or order has been rendered, nor any other proceeding taken by this Court on the right of the intervenors to appeal."

On December 20, 1954, counsel filed once more a motion to amend the record on appeal based on grounds identical with those alleged in the petition for correction filed before the Supreme  Court.  On December 27,  1954, the lower court denied the  motion.  On January 6, 1955,  counsel filed a petition for relief from this last order entered on December 27,  1954, to which counsel  for  defendant filed an opposition.  On February 5, 1955, hearing was  had on both the petition  for relief and the opposition,  and on February 9, 1955,  the  petition was  denied  on the ground that the case is already before  the  Supreme Court on appeal.   It is from this order that counsel for intervenors has taken the appeal now before us.

The instant appeal has no merit.

To begin with, the only remedy which appellants  now seek in this appeal is the inclusion of the intervenors as appellants in the appeal from the decision rendered in the main case, but this remedy has already been denied twice by this Court, first, in its resolution of November 12, 1954 denying their petition for correction of the record on appeal, and, second, in denying  their motion for reconsideration of said resolution.   It should be noted that the grounds relied upon in this  appeal are the same grounds alleged in said petition for correction.

In the second  place, the intervenors have no right or reason to appeal  from the decision in the main case,  it appearing that they did not introduce any evidence during the trial in support of their complaint, which shows  that their appeal  would be merely pro-forma.  And, in. any event, they made the attempt to amend the record on appeal seven  (7)  months  after the  decision  had become  final against them.

In  the third place, the intervenors  have no right or reason to file a petition for relief  under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court from the order of the  lower court issued on December 27, 1954, for the reason  that the same  was entered upon a motion filed by them.   Indeed they cannot reasonably assert that the order was entered against them through fraud,  accident, mistake, or  negligence.   The fraud mentioned in Rule  38 is the fraud committed by the adverse party and certainly the same cannot be attributed to the Court.

Finally,  it appears that the main case has already been decided by this  Court on the merits on October 31,  1956, reversing the decision of the lower court  and  awarding damages to plaintiff, which apparently is the very purpose which  the  intervenors seek to accomplish in joining the appeal as co-appellants.  This appeal, therefore, has already become moot.

Wherefore, the order appealed  from is affirmed,  with costs against appellants.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor,  Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Barrera, JJ., concur.