Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1986 > July 1986 Decisions > G.R. No. L-65439 (UDK-7316) July 31, 1986 - PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-65439 (UDK-7316). July 31, 1986.]

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA, Petitioner, v. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. FILEMON FERNANDEZ, JR., HON. ALBINA MANALODANS, as Commissioners of Civil Service Commission and HERNANI P. ESTEBAN, Respondents.


R E S O L U T I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


On November 13, 1985, this Court promulgated its decision in G.R. No. 65439 entitled "Pamantasan Ng Lungsod Ng Maynila v. The Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, Et. Al." dismissing the petition for review and affirming the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, . . . Resolution No. 81-279 dated March 1, 1981, as well as Resolution No. 81-510 dated April 23, 1981, of the Respondent Civil Service Commission, declaring as permanent the appointment of the appellant Dr. Hernani Esteban as vice-president for administration of the university under the Board of Regents’ Resolution No. 485 dated June 23, 1973, and ordering his immediate reinstatement to that position with back salaries, allowances and other benefits, is affirmed, provided he has not yet reached the age of compulsory retirement from the government service; otherwise he shall be entitled to back salaries, allowances and other benefits only up to the time he should have been retired from said service."cralaw virtua1aw library

We modified the above judgment such that the payment of back salaries should not exceed a period of five (5) years.

On February 14, 1986, an "Ex-Parte Motion for Immediate Execution" was filed by Dr. Esteban before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XIII. A writ of execution was issued by Judge Rafael Declaro in an order dated February 18, 1986.

On March 3, 1986, the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied by Deputy Sheriff Reynaldo G. Javier with the explanation from the City Legal Officer Augusto O. Casibang (representing respondent Pamantasan) that "the records of the Pamantasan Ng Lungsod Ng Maynila show that Dr. Hernani Esteban had reached the compulsory age of 65 since July 20, 1984, having been born on July 20, 1919. His reinstatement under the expressed terms of the decision being subject to the condition that `he has not yet reached the age of compulsory retirement’ it follows that he cannot be legally reinstated without varying the decision itself. Under the circumstances, the writ of execution for reinstatement of Dr. Esteban is not authorized by the decision itself."cralaw virtua1aw library

An alias writ of execution was sought by Dr. Esteban but the motion seeking it was denied by Judge Declaro in an order dated March 5, 1986. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in an order dated March 14, 1986. Petitioner Esteban filed a notice of appeal stating that he was appealing the March 5, 1986 and the March 14, 1986 orders to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.

Republic Act No. 5440, enacted September 9, 1968, provides that the mode of seeking Supreme Court review of a lower court’s final judgment or decree shall be by petition for review on certiorari. Since Dr. Esteban erroneously filed a notice of appeal instead of a petition for review and failed to timely pay the docket and legal research fund fees, the questioned orders of the lower court have now become final and executory. On this score alone, this petition or "appeal" may be dismissed outright. The respondent Judge and his Clerk of Court compounded the error when the Judge ordered the elevation of the records to this Court on the basis of the notice of appeal and the Clerk automatically complied without calling the attention of the Judge to the obvious error.

At any rate, even if we treat this "appeal" as a motion for clarification of our November 13, 1985 decision, which we do, it will have to be denied for lack of merit.

In his motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s March 5, 1986 order, Dr. Esteban asserts that it is essential that he be reinstated "not only to correct the wrong done him but, more importantly, to remove the stigma of his illegal and unfair dismissal," citing a recent decision of this Court in G.R. No. L-49071 entitled, The Insular Life Assurance Co., LTD. Et. Al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, Et Al., (135 SCRA 697).

Section 1, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Execution upon final judgment or orders. — Execution shall issue only upon a judgment or order that finally disposes of the action or proceeding. Such execution shall issue as a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


Execution is a remedy afforded by law for the enforcement of a judgment. It is a judicial writ issued to an officer authorizing and requiring him to execute the judgment of the court (Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines 1966 Edition, Volume II, pp. 592-593). Once judgment becomes final, it is basic that the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution the issuance of which is the trial court’s ministerial duty (Balintawak Construction Supply Corp. v. Valenzuela, 124 SCRA 331; Santos v. Sibug, 104 SCRA 520; Carreon v. Buissan, 70 SCRA 57; Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co. Inc. v. Vda. de Hernandez, 67 SCRA 256; Magdangal v. Hawaiian-Philippine Co., 65 SCRA 101; and Bayer Philippines v. Agana, 63 SCRA 355). The writ is compellable by mandamus (Balintawak Construction Supply Corp. v. Valenzuela, supra).

Execution must, however, conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment issued. An execution which is not warranted by the judgment and exceeds it has no validity. It may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce. Where the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has pro tanto no validity (Collector of Internal Revenue v. Gutierrez, Et Al., 108 Phil. 215; Windsor Steel Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 102 SCRA 275; Philippine American Accident Insurance Co., Inc. v. Flores, 97 SCRA 811; Araneta v. Perez, 97 SCRA 584; Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration v. Gonzales, 92 SCRA 172; and Gamboa’s Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA 131).

In this case where the decision sought to be enforced specifically provides for Dr. Esteban’s reinstatement on the condition that "he has not yet reached the age of compulsory retirement" a writ of execution compelling respondent Pamantasan to reinstate petitioner inspite of his having reached the age of retirement would not be in consonance with the expressed terms of the decision and a writ of execution issued therefor would amount to a nullity, an act in excess of the trial court’s jurisdiction.

It is in the faithful performance of the obligations of its office under the law and obedience to the pronouncements of this Court that the trial court denied Dr. Esteban’s motion for an alias writ of execution. That of necessity must be so and cannot be otherwise. We must commend rather than fault the trial court for its fealty to duty.

Certainly, it was with full sympathy that the trial court considered Dr. Esteban’s concern that he be "physically" reinstated. Yet the court’s power cannot be enlarged by its emotions (McKenna, Herrera v. United States, 22 US 558, 572). As we have pointed out in the case cited by the petitioner, Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., Et. Al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra, "reinstatement . . . would (as in this case) merely be symbolic." There is no necessity for symbolism in this case. Our pronouncements have fully vindicated Dr. Esteban from the stigma of dishonorable dismissal. We have upheld his rights and we guarantee the same. We need not punctuate the Pamantasan’s errors further. It is with humility that Dr. Esteban should dignify himself in victory.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the COURT RESOLVED to DISMISS the case now before us. Judge Rafael M. Declaro and Clerk of Court Cesar P. Javier are cautioned to abide by the procedure in Republic Act No. 5440 in future cases of this nature.

SO ORDERED.

Feria, Fernan, Alampay and Paras, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1986 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-49385-87 July 2, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO BANAAN

  • G.R. No. L-28526 July 7, 1986 - REMIGIO V. TAN, ET AL. v. GREGORIO T. LANTIN

  • G.R. Nos. L-44444-45 July 7, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO PACADA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60074 July 7, 1986 - TEOFILO I. MARCELO v. FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-60087 July 7, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN L. NABALUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-64548 July 7, 1986 - ROLANDO P. BARTOLOME v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67496 July 7, 1986 - TOP RATE INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68574 July 7, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOROTEO BAAO

  • G.R. No. 71370 July 7, 1986 - SLOBODAN BOBANOVIC, ET AL. v. SYLVIA P. MONTES

  • G.R. No. 71989 July 7, 1986 - AVELINA CONDE v. FELIX MAMENTA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 74077 July 7, 1986 - FOSTER PARENTS PLAN INTERNATIONAL/BICOL, ET AL. v. HARRIET DEMETRIOU

  • A.M. No. 84-3-886-0 July 7, 1986 - SOLICITOR GENERAL v. PERPETUA D. COLOMA

  • G.R. No. L-70054 July 8, 1986 - BANCO FILIPINO v. MONETARY BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70054 July 8, 1986 - BANCO FILIPINO v. MONETARY BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46638 July 9, 1986 - AQUILINA R. ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65545 July 9, 1986 - FIRST ASIAN TRANSPORT & SHIPPING AGENCY, INC. v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65594 July 9, 1986 - MAHARLIKA PUBLISHING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. LUZ R. TAGLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66945 July 9, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO BANDOJO

  • G.R. No. L-68805 July 9, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-36958 July 10, 1986 - MARIANO ZABAT, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-66497-98 July 10, 1986 - VIRGILIO V. SACAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 71117 July 10, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO D. NG

  • G.R. No. 73680 July 10, 1986 - DANILO O. ALMOITE v. PACIFIC ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS, INC., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 2278-MJ July 11, 1986 - SERGIO V. BAUTISTA v. LORETO GUEVARRA

  • G.R. No. L-40294 July 11, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOBIAS RIBADAJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48606 July 11, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO S. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-58674-77 July 11, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO PANIS

  • G.R. No. L-60962 July 11, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO C. MONTEVERDE

  • G.R. No. L-64699 July 11, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO MASILANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65153 July 11, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANSUETO LAMBERTE

  • G.R. No. L-67715 July 11, 1986 - WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE, ET AL. v. ELIANE M. DE LENCQUESAING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68288 July 11, 1986 - DIOSDADO GUZMAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68633 July 11, 1986 - JESUS A. SALVACION v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-68922 July 11, 1986 - IN RE: FIDEL AGCAOILI, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. No. 73155 July 11, 1986 - PATRICIO TAN, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28498 July 14, 1986 - SALVADOR DE LA RAMA v. RAFAEL LEDESMA

  • G.R. No. L-34539 July 14, 1986 - EULALIO PRUDENCIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62943 July 14, 1986 - METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-66696 July 14, 1986 - FRANCISCA ARSENAL, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-63709-10 July 16, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN PERANTE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71360 July 16, 1986 - DEVELOPMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-51612-13 July 22, 1986 - GLOBAL INCORPORATED v. DIEGO D. ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62642 July 22, 1986 - TRINIDAD DE LEON VDA. DE ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63053 July 22, 1986 - DESTILERIA LIMTUACO & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-66174 July 22, 1986 - ANGELES BRAVO v. EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68620 July 22, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE TULAGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68661 July 22, 1986 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72248 July 22, 1986 - METRO DRUG CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65913 July 28, 1986 - RENATO B. TORRES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69334 July 28, 1986 - SERVILLANO ALINSUGAY v. PERFECTO M. CAGAMPANG, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-69572 July 28, 1986 - JOSEFINA MILLORA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71017 July 28, 1986 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINE, INC. v. LEONARDO I. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-66469 July 29, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. BERNARDO SALAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2734 July 30, 1986 - ROSA SANTIAGO ARCADIO, ET AL. v. CESAR ZOOK YLAGAN

  • G.R. No. L-55935 July 30, 1986 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. MIGUEL GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 70306-07 July 30, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO GALO

  • G.R. No. 71459 July 30, 1986 - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39844 July 31, 1986 - TALISAY EMPLOYEES’ & LABORERS’ ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41395 July 31, 1986 - ALMARIO T. SALTA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48010 July 31, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANCHO A. BUDOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53196 July 31, 1986 - PACIFICO DE SAGUN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-58889 July 31, 1986 - NATHANIEL S. MANIPON, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-60066 July 31, 1986 - FELISA RIVERA, ET AL. v. ALFREDO C. FLORENDO

  • G.R. No. L-61523 July 31, 1986 - ANTAM CONSOLIDATED, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-62831-32 July 31, 1986 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65439 (UDK-7316) July 31, 1986 - PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-66010-12 July 31, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO Y. IBAL