SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 211969, October 04, 2021
THE LINDEN SUITES, INC. Petitioner, v. MERIDIEN FAR EAST PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 are the July 18, 2013 Decision2 and the March 31, 2014 Resoiution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 121311.
The CA affirmed the February 18, 2011 Order4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denying petitioner Linden Suites Inc.'s (petitioner) Urgent Motion to Examine Judgment Obligor.5
The Antecedent Facts:
The Linden Suites Inc (petitioner) filed on November 18. 2005 a complaint6 for damages against respondent Meridien Far East Properties, Inc. (respondent) before the RTC, Branch 70 of Pasig City,7 which was docketed as Civil Case No. 69023. Petitioner averred that while doing excavation works for the construction of the Linden Suites in Ortigas, Pasig City, it discovered that the concrete retaining wall of the adjacent building, One Magnificent Mile (OMM), owned by respondent, had encroached on its property line.
Petitioner then informed respondent about the encroachment which, in turn, immediately instructed its workers to remove the same. However, respondent's workers were unable to finish it and a substantial part still needed to be removed. Petitioner was consequently compelled to hire a contractor to complete the demolition. It then demanded payment of the cost of the additional works it conducted in the amount of P3,980,468.50, but respondent refused, which led to the filing of the complaint.
The RTC, in its Decision8 dated November 18, 2005, adjudged respondent liable for the cost of the demolition, actual and compensatory damages, and attorney's fees. The dispositive portion the judgment reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant Meridien Far East Properties, Inc. (MFEPI) to pay plaintiff Linden Suites, Inc. (LSI) the following:The CA affirmed the RTC's Decision but modified it by deleting the award of actual and compensatory damages.10]
1. PHP3,980,468.50, plus legal interest thereon from the date of final demand, 21 August 2000 until such amount is fully paid;
2. PHP1,000,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages;
3. PHP500,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees, and the
4. costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.9chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court: |
WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff's Urgent Motion to Examine Judgment Obligor is hereby DENIED for being devoid of merit.Petitioner sought a reconsideration20 but the RTC denied it in an Order21 dated July 8, 2011. Hence, it filed a Petition for Certiorari22 before the CA arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders.
SO ORDERRD.19chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari dated September 16, 2011 is hereby DISMISSED.Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CA in its Resolution25 dated March 31, 2014.
SO ORDERED.24chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The RTC's error in judgment is tantamount to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. |
The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility." Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void." From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross. x x x32chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryA judicious review of this case shows that the CA erred when it held that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in denying petitioner's motion for examination of respondent's officers.
The RTC as the judgment court has supervisory control over the execution of its judgment. |
In Carpio v. Doroja, the Court ruled that the deciding court has supervisory control over the execution of its judgment:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThe judgment court's supervisory control over the case ensures the enforcement of a party's rights or claims that it has duly recognized. Indeed, a court's mandate to resolve disputes ends upon its adjudication of the litigation. It is only when the party that has secured favorable judgment finally relishes the fruits of its legal calvary that justice may be said to have been duly served. This tenet fortifies a judgment court's so-called supervisory control over decided suits.A case in which an execution has been issued is regarded as still pending so that all proceedings on the execution are proceedings in the suit. There is no question that the court which rendered the judgment has a general supervisory control over its process of execution, and this power carries with it the right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution.We reiterated the above holding in Javier v. Court of Appeals in this wise: "The said branch has a general supervisory control over its processes in the execution of its judgment with a right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution."
The court's supervisory control does not, however, extend as to authorize the alteration or amendment of a final and executory decision, save for certain recognized exceptions, among which is the correction of clerical errors. Else, the court violates the principle of finality of judgment and its immutability, concepts which the Court, in Tan v. Timbal, defined:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryAs we held in Industrial Management International Development Corporation vs. NLRC:
It is an elementary principle of procedure that the resolution of the court in a given issue as embodied in the dispositive part of a decision or order is the controlling factor as to settlement of rights of the parties. Once a decision or order becomes final and executory, it is removed from the power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further alter or amend it. It thereby becomes immutable and unalterable and any amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose. An order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.36 (Citations Omitted.)
A judgment obligee is entitled, as a matter of right, to an order of the court which rendered judgment if the writ of execution issued against the judgment obligor was returned unsatisfied, in whole or in part. |
The general rule is that it is the ministerial duty of the court to order the execution of its final judgment. However, Rule 135, Section 5(g) of the Rules of Court provides that the trial court may amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. It has the inherent power to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial offices, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a case before it, in every manner appertaining thereto. The inherent power of the court carries with it the right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution. The court may stay or suspend the execution of its judgment if warranted by the higher interest of justice. It has the authority to cause a modification of the decision when it becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or when supervening events warrant it. The court is also vested with inherent power to stay the enforcement of its decision based on antecedent facts which show fraud in its rendition or want of jurisdiction of the trial court apparent on the record. (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)In the case at bench; the writ of execution was returned unserved, as shown in the Sheriff's Return dated June 18, 2010. It was therefore imperative for the judgment court to issue an order for examination of respondent after the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied. Such order would have ensured the satisfaction of its judgment, all the more so if it has already attained finality. In other words, the RTC, pursuant to its residual authority, should have issued auxiliary writs and employed processes and other means necessary to execute its final judgment.39
The doctrine of separate juridical personality is inapplicable in the case at bench. |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 41-66.
2 Id. at 68-73; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
3 Id. at 75-76.
4 CA rollo, pp. 24-27; penned by Judge Louis P. Acosta.
5 Id. at 163-185.
6 Id. at 77-82.
7 Stationed in Taguig City.
8Rollo, pp. 112-118.
9 Id. at 118.
10 Id. at 132-141.
11 Id. at 142.
12 Id. at 143.
13 Id. at 144.
14 Id. at 119-124.
15 Id. at 145.
16 Id. at 160.
17 Id. at 161-167.
18 Id. at 203-206.
19 Id. at 206.
20 Id. at 207-216.
21 Id. at 231.
22 Id. at 232-249.
23 Id. at 68-73.
24 Id. at 72-73.
25 Id. at 75-76.
26Tagle v. Equitable PCI Bank, 575 Phil. 384, 396 (2008).
27 See id.
28Intec Cebu Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 788 Phil. 31, 42 (2016).
29 See Estallila v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 217448, September 10, 2019.
30Cruz v. People of the Philippines, 812 Phil. 166, 173(2017).
31 667 Phil. 474 (2011)
32 Id. at 481-482.
33Kukan International Corporation v. Reyes, 646 Phil. 210, 224 (2010).
34 Id. at 226.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 224-226.
37 Section 6, Rule 135, Rules of Court.
38 495 Phil. 459-484 (2005).
39 See Belizario v. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, G. R. No. 231001 (Resolution), [March 24, 2021].
40Ohoma v. Office of the Municipal Local Civil Registrar of Aguinaldo, Ifugao, G.R. No. 239584, June 17, 2019.
41 Section 6, Rule 135, Rules of Court.
43Heirs of Tan Uy v. International Exchange Bank, 703 Phil. 477, 484-485 (2013).
44 Id.
45 Id.cralawredlibrary