SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-41875. March 12, 1976.]
GERMANICO A. CARREON, Petitioner, v. HON. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN, Presiding Judge of Branch III, Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte; and PATERNO F. ADASA, Respondents.
Godardo Ad. Jacinto for Petitioner.
Paterno F. Adasa and Castro, Makalintal, Mendoza, Gonzales & Associates for Private Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner, as protestee in a mayoralty election contest, appealed to the Court of Appeals the decision of the respondent judge declaring protestant the duly elected mayor. Notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, the respondent judge, on motion of the protestant, granted the writ of execution of the appealed judgement and ousted petitioner. Contending that the respondent judge gravely abused its discretion, petitioner instituted a certiorari action in the Court of Appeals which, thereafter, voided the questioned writ of execution and ordered protestant to pay petitioner attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. After the entry of the Court of Appeal’s judgement, petitioner filed with the respondent court a motion for execution for the purpose of enforcing the protestant’s obligation to petitioner. The respondent court denied the motion on the ground that the same is premature as the case from which said judgment was rendered was a mere incident to the main case, which is the election protest pending in the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court ruled that the judgment in the certiorari case having become final, respondent court has the ministerial duty to order its execution, such duty being compellable by mandamus. It ruled, further, that the pendency of the appeal from the decision in the election protest cannot be an obstacle to the execution of the judgment in the certiorari action.
Orders complained of set aside.
The Supreme Court ruled that the judgment in the certiorari case having become final, respondent court has the ministerial duty to order its execution, such duty being compellable by mandamus. It ruled, further, that the pendency of the appeal from the decision in the election protest cannot be an obstacle to the execution of the judgment in the certiorari action.
Orders complained of set aside.
SYLLABUS
1. JUDGMENTS; EXECUTION; PREVAILING PARTY ENTITLED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT TO WRIT OF EXECUTION AFTER JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL. — The settled rule is that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution, and the issuance thereof is the court’s ministerial duty, compellable by mandamus. It has been fittingly observed that "an execution is the fruit and the end of the suit, and is very aptly called the life of the law."cralaw virtua1aw library
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PENDENCY OF APPEAL IN ELECTION PROTEST NOT A BAR TO EXECUTION OF FINAL JUDGMENT IN CERTIORARI CASE — Where the trial court issues a writ of execution of its judgment in an election contest notwithstanding the pendency of the protestee’s appeal therefrom, prompting the protestee to file thereafter a certiorari action in the Court of Appeals questioning the action of the trial court, and the Court of Appeals promulgates a decision voiding the writ issued by the trial court and ordering the protestant to pay the protestee attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, such decision may, after its finality, be executed inspite of the pendency of the election contest. The pendency of appeal from the decision in the election contest cannot be an obstacle to the execution of the final judgment in the certiorari action.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PENDENCY OF APPEAL IN ELECTION PROTEST NOT A BAR TO EXECUTION OF FINAL JUDGMENT IN CERTIORARI CASE — Where the trial court issues a writ of execution of its judgment in an election contest notwithstanding the pendency of the protestee’s appeal therefrom, prompting the protestee to file thereafter a certiorari action in the Court of Appeals questioning the action of the trial court, and the Court of Appeals promulgates a decision voiding the writ issued by the trial court and ordering the protestant to pay the protestee attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, such decision may, after its finality, be executed inspite of the pendency of the election contest. The pendency of appeal from the decision in the election contest cannot be an obstacle to the execution of the final judgment in the certiorari action.
D E C I S I O N
ANTONIO, J.:
The only issue in this petition for certiorari is whether or not respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disallowing petitioner’s motion for execution of the final judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R.
Petitioner, as protestee in an election contest in the 1971 mayoralty election in the City of Dapitan 1 appealed to the Court of Appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch III, presided over by respondent Judge, declaring Adasa as the duly elected Mayor of said city.chanrobles law library : red
Notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, the respondent court, on motion of respondent, and despite petitioner’s opposition, granted the writ of execution on February 21, 1973, of the appealed judgment, and petitioner was ousted and respondent Adasa installed as the new Mayor of Dapitan City.
Contending that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in issuing the said order, petitioner instituted with the Court of Appeals, on March 5, 1973, a special civil action for certiorari. 2 Thereafter, after due proceedings, the appellate court, on May 12, 1973, promulgated its decision in CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1) Special Order dated February 19, 1973, and the order dated February 21, 1973, denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the same special order, as well as the writ of execution that was issued pursuant to said orders, are hereby set aside and declared null and void;
2) Let a writ of mandatory injunction be issued against the respondents enjoining them and all their attorneys, representatives, agents, and all other persons assisting them, to restore or reinstate and allow the petitioner to occupy the position of City Mayor of Dapitan and to exercise the powers and duties appertaining thereto;
3) And, ordering said private respondent to pay the petitioner P5,000.00 attorney’s fee and expenses of litigation, with costs against the respondents."cralaw virtua1aw library
On June 20, 1973, Petitioner, pursuant to the order of the Court of Appeals in the afore-mentioned case, was reinstated as Mayor of Dapitan City.
Respondent Adasa, not satisfied with the aforesaid decision, brought the matter to this Court on certiorari on June 21, 1973 in G.R. No. L-37023. This petition, however, as well as Adasa’s motion for reconsideration, was denied for lack of merit.
Entry of judgment in CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R was made by the Appellate Court on June 6, 1973.
On October 17, 1973, the record of the afore-mentioned case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur for execution of the judgment.
On April 30, 1974, the Court of Appeals approved the Bill of Costs of petitioner in the amount of P117.44.chanrobles law library : red
On March 3, 1973, petitioner filed with the respondent court a motion for execution for the purpose of enforcing Adasa’s obligation in the judgment to pay petitioner the total sum of P5,117.44, as approved by the Appellate Court. This motion was denied by the respondent Judge on April 2, 1975. This was predicated on the contention that the same is premature as the case from which the said judgment was rendered was a mere incident in the main case, which is the election protest pending with the Court of Appeals, and being a "mere incident in the main case it can not be executed because said judgment or order did not dispose finally of the main action or proceedings." Two motions for reconsideration of the afore-mentioned order, filed by petitioner to enable respondent court to rectify its error, were both denied, hence this petition for certiorari and mandamus.
In the meantime, on May 13, 1975, the Court of Appeals, in the election protest, 3 rendered its judgment reversing the appealed decision and dismissing the election protest of respondent Adasa.
Respondent Adasa appealed from the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court by filing with this Court a petition for certiorari on September 8, 1975. This petition 4 was, however, denied by the Court for lack of merit in its Resolution of November 5, 1975. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on December 8, 1975, and the denial was considered final.
The settled rule is that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution, 5 and the issuance thereof is the court’s ministerial duty, compellable by mandamus. 6 It has been fittingly observed that "an execution is the fruit and end of the suit, and is very aptly called the life of the law." 7 The judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R explicitly ordains the payment by private respondent Adasa to petitioner of the amount of P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, with costs against said party. This judgment has become final, and respondent court has the ministerial duty to order its execution. That duty is compellable by mandamus. This judgment of the Appellate Court in CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R, is distinct and independent from the judgment of the same Court in CA-G.R. No. SP-02029-R, 8 and the pendency of the latter cannot be an obstacle to the execution of the former.
In any event, the decision of the Court of Appeals in the election protest (SP-02029-R) has now become final.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the orders of respondent court of April 2, 1975, May 26, 1975, and September 22, 1975 are hereby set aside, and said court is directed to issue the corresponding writ to enforce the final judgment in CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R. No Special pronouncement as to costs.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petitioner, as protestee in an election contest in the 1971 mayoralty election in the City of Dapitan 1 appealed to the Court of Appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch III, presided over by respondent Judge, declaring Adasa as the duly elected Mayor of said city.chanrobles law library : red
Notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, the respondent court, on motion of respondent, and despite petitioner’s opposition, granted the writ of execution on February 21, 1973, of the appealed judgment, and petitioner was ousted and respondent Adasa installed as the new Mayor of Dapitan City.
Contending that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in issuing the said order, petitioner instituted with the Court of Appeals, on March 5, 1973, a special civil action for certiorari. 2 Thereafter, after due proceedings, the appellate court, on May 12, 1973, promulgated its decision in CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1) Special Order dated February 19, 1973, and the order dated February 21, 1973, denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the same special order, as well as the writ of execution that was issued pursuant to said orders, are hereby set aside and declared null and void;
2) Let a writ of mandatory injunction be issued against the respondents enjoining them and all their attorneys, representatives, agents, and all other persons assisting them, to restore or reinstate and allow the petitioner to occupy the position of City Mayor of Dapitan and to exercise the powers and duties appertaining thereto;
3) And, ordering said private respondent to pay the petitioner P5,000.00 attorney’s fee and expenses of litigation, with costs against the respondents."cralaw virtua1aw library
On June 20, 1973, Petitioner, pursuant to the order of the Court of Appeals in the afore-mentioned case, was reinstated as Mayor of Dapitan City.
Respondent Adasa, not satisfied with the aforesaid decision, brought the matter to this Court on certiorari on June 21, 1973 in G.R. No. L-37023. This petition, however, as well as Adasa’s motion for reconsideration, was denied for lack of merit.
Entry of judgment in CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R was made by the Appellate Court on June 6, 1973.
On October 17, 1973, the record of the afore-mentioned case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur for execution of the judgment.
On April 30, 1974, the Court of Appeals approved the Bill of Costs of petitioner in the amount of P117.44.chanrobles law library : red
On March 3, 1973, petitioner filed with the respondent court a motion for execution for the purpose of enforcing Adasa’s obligation in the judgment to pay petitioner the total sum of P5,117.44, as approved by the Appellate Court. This motion was denied by the respondent Judge on April 2, 1975. This was predicated on the contention that the same is premature as the case from which the said judgment was rendered was a mere incident in the main case, which is the election protest pending with the Court of Appeals, and being a "mere incident in the main case it can not be executed because said judgment or order did not dispose finally of the main action or proceedings." Two motions for reconsideration of the afore-mentioned order, filed by petitioner to enable respondent court to rectify its error, were both denied, hence this petition for certiorari and mandamus.
In the meantime, on May 13, 1975, the Court of Appeals, in the election protest, 3 rendered its judgment reversing the appealed decision and dismissing the election protest of respondent Adasa.
Respondent Adasa appealed from the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court by filing with this Court a petition for certiorari on September 8, 1975. This petition 4 was, however, denied by the Court for lack of merit in its Resolution of November 5, 1975. His motion for reconsideration was likewise denied on December 8, 1975, and the denial was considered final.
The settled rule is that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution, 5 and the issuance thereof is the court’s ministerial duty, compellable by mandamus. 6 It has been fittingly observed that "an execution is the fruit and end of the suit, and is very aptly called the life of the law." 7 The judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R explicitly ordains the payment by private respondent Adasa to petitioner of the amount of P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, with costs against said party. This judgment has become final, and respondent court has the ministerial duty to order its execution. That duty is compellable by mandamus. This judgment of the Appellate Court in CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R, is distinct and independent from the judgment of the same Court in CA-G.R. No. SP-02029-R, 8 and the pendency of the latter cannot be an obstacle to the execution of the former.
In any event, the decision of the Court of Appeals in the election protest (SP-02029-R) has now become final.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the orders of respondent court of April 2, 1975, May 26, 1975, and September 22, 1975 are hereby set aside, and said court is directed to issue the corresponding writ to enforce the final judgment in CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R. No Special pronouncement as to costs.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Sp. Civil Case No. 2220, entitled "Paterno F. Adasa, Protestant, versus Germanico A. Carreon, Protestee."
2. CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R, entitled "Germanico A. Carreon, Petitioner, versus Hon. Dimalanes B. Buissan, etc., Et Al., Respondents."
3. CA-G.R. No. SP-02029-R, entitled "Paterno F. Adasa, Appellee, versus Germanico A. Carreon, Appellant.
4. G.R. No. L-41043, entitled "Paterno F. Adasa versus Honorable Court of Appeals and Germanico A. Carreon."
5. Section 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court; De Luna v. Kayanan, 61 SCRA 49.
6. Facundo v. Hon. Pabalan, 114 Phil. 307, 315; San Diego v. Hon. Montesa, 116 Phil. 512, 516.
7. Bank of U.S. v. Halstead, 6 Law Ed. 264-267, 268.
8. Entitled "Paterno F. Adasa, Protestant-Appellee, versus Germanico A. Carreon, Protestee-Appellant."
