ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 141949. April 5, 2000]

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 5, 2000.

G.R. No. 141949 (Ceferino Padua vs. Honorable Santiago Ranada, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Makati, Branch 137; Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC); Toll Regulatory Board (TRB); Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH); and Republic of the Philippines.)

This is a petition for mandamus to compel the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 137, to issue the writ of execution for the enforcement of the decision dated August 4, 1989 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 13235, entitled "Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Jesus Guerrero, et al." Said decision declared, in part, certain portions of the expressways, (in the South, from Nichols to Alabang and in the North, from Balintawak to Tabang) as excluded from the franchise of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC).

The PNCC appealed the above decision to the Supreme Court. During its pendency, the Parties entered into a compromise agreement, which agreement allowed PNCC to operate the questioned portions of the North and South Expressways on condition that the toll fees to be charged for the use of said roadway shall be utilized exclusively for the maintenance and upkeep of the same.

Some months later, on the contention that PNCC had violated the compromise agreement, a writ of execution was applied for and granted by the trial court per orders dated 17 June 1991 and 19 August 1991.

PNCC appealed the orders to the Court of Appeals, questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC and its findings. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and sustained the validity of the writ of execution.

PNCC went up again to this Court. Pending resolution of the petition, a second compromise agreement was entered into by the parties, and approved by the Court on December 17, 1993.

On February 14, 1999, PNCC and Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation imposed new toll rates along the South Luzon Expressway.

The intervenors, herein petitioner and a certain Mr. Gaite (now deceased), objected to the new toll rates and contended that the same violated the second compromise agreement which fixed the toll rates to be charged by PNCC at the rates approved by the Toll and Regulatory Board (TRB) in 1983.

The issue presented now is whether or not our resolution in PNCC vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104437 (the judgment approving the second compromise agreement) dated December 17, 1993 can still be executed on a mere motion.

The applicable law is Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus,

Here, the judgment or resolution sought to be executed was rendered on December 17, 1993. Hence, the parties had until December 17, 1998 within which to execute the same on a mere motion. However, petitioner-intervenor filed his motion for execution only on February 19, 1999, or two months beyond the legal period. Respondent court was, therefore, correct in denying petitioner's motion for execution.

The 5-year period having lapsed, petitioner's remedy is to file a new action for revival of judgment as provided under Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.