ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 126462.February 5, 2003]
NATALIA REALTY vs. CA
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 5 2003.
G.R. No. 126462(Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)
Before the Court are two motions filed by private respondents: (1) Motion for Execution Against TRO Bond (Manager's Check) and (2) Manifestation with Motion for Entry of Judgment.
On November 12, 2002, the Court dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by Natalia Realty, Inc. ("petitioner" for brevity) against Antonio Martinez, Felipe Padua, Mario Perfecto and Hermito Salodega ("private respondents" for brevity). The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, shall forthwith issue and cause to be immediately enforced an ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION of the Order of August 3, 1995 granting possession to private respondents of portions of the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 31527 and 31528 (now No. N-67845). This decision is immediately executory. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand the records of the case to the court of origin.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED."
On November 28, 2002, private respondents filed a "Motion for Execution Against TRO Bond (Manager's Check)". In their motion, private respondents point out that to secure the issuance of a temporary restraining order, petitioner posted with the Court a Manager's Check of BPI-Family Bank, Taytay Branch, dated February 27, 1997 in the amount of P100,000.00. Petitioner posted the cash bond pursuant to the March 3, 1997 Resolution of the Court granting the motion of petitioner to file a cash bond. The pertinent portion of the Court's resolution reads:
"The motion of the petitioner dated February 25, 1997 to file a cash bond in lieu of the supersedeas bond issued by Mercantile Insurance Company which petitioner filed on October 29, 1996 in order to expedite the issuance of a temporary restraining order in this case and submitting a Manager's Check in the amount of P100,000.00 issued by the BPI-Family Bank, Taytay Branch, is GRANTED. As prayed for, let a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUE enjoining the respondents from enforcing the Court of Appeals' questioned resolutions promulgated on June 27, 1995 and June 19, 1996 in CA-G.R. CV No. 44915 entitled "Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Antonio Martinez, et al."
In view of the November 12, 2002 Decision of the Court dismissing the instant petition, private respondents pray that the bond posted by petitioner with the Court, in the amount of P100,000.00, be executed on and released in private respondents' favor.
On December 16, 2002, the Court required petitioner to file its Comment.
Petitioner filed its "Opposition to Motion of Ceferino Padua To Have Manager's Check of P100,000.00 Be Released In Favor of Respondents" arguing for the denial of the motion of private respondents. Petitioner contends that the manager's check deposited by it should be applied to the satisfaction of any judgment rendered in favor of private respondents, and after satisfying the judgment, the balance should be refunded to it. Petitioner insists that a hearing should be conducted to determine the extent of the damage suffered by private respondents. Petitioner invokes Section 18 of Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.The provision reads:
"Sec. 18. Disposition of money deposited.- Where the party against whom attachment had been issued has deposited money instead of giving counter-bond, it shall be applied under the direction of the court to the satisfaction of any judgment rendered in favor of the attaching party, and after satisfying the judgment the balance shall be rendered to the depositor or his assignee. If the judgment is in favor of the party against whom attachment was issued, the whole sum deposited must be refunded to him or his assignee."
On January 13, 2003, private respondents filed a "Manifestation with Motion for Entry of Judgment". Private respondents bewail the fact that the Regional Trial Court could not act on their motion for execution of the Decision of the Court dated November 12, 2002 because the records of the case have not been remanded to it. Private respondents manifest that they are now far more interested in forthwith executing the decision of the Court granting them possession of the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 31527 and 31528 instead of pursuing execution on the bond. Private respondents would rather withdraw their Motion for Execution Against TRO Bond (Manager's Check) if the motion would only pose as an obstacle to an immediate execution of the Court's decision. To expedite the execution of the decision, private respondents pray for the issuance of an entry of judgment since petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration of said decision. Private respondents believe that an entry of judgment is in order even while the Motion for Execution Against TRO Bond (Manager's Check) is pending before the Court.
The Court resolves to reiterate its declaration in its Decision dated November 12, 2002 that said decision is immediately executory. The Court also resolves to refer private respondents' Motion for Execution Against TRO Bond (Manager's Check) to the Regional Trial Court so that it could hear private respondents' claim for damages.
Section 1 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that before a writ of execution could issue, the judgment obligee must first apply for execution with the court of origin and with notice to the adverse party. Together with the motion, the judgment obligee must submit (1) certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and (2) the entry of such judgment or final order. [1] cralaw An entry of judgment is thus generally required before a writ of execution could issue. However, where the judgment or final order or resolution, or a portion thereof is ordered to be immediately executory, an entry of judgment is no longer necessary. [2] cralaw Section 11 of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court clearly provides:
"Sec.11- Except where the judgment or final order or resolution, or a portion thereof, is ordered to be immediately executory, the motion for its execution may only be filed in the proper court after its entry."
To avoid unnecessary delays and to prevent the losing party from thwarting execution, the 1997 Rules of Court has abandoned the requirement that a court must await the return of the records before it could effect execution. [3] cralaw The Regional Trial Court, the court of origin in this case, has therefore no reason to deny or delay the enforcement of execution just because the records of the case have yet to be remanded to it.
For as long as private respondents have on motion applied for a writ of execution with notice to the adverse party and submitted certified true copies of the judgment or final orders sought to be enforced, the Regional Trial Court should posthaste comply with the Court's directive. In its November 12, 2002 Decision, the Court emphatically orders the Regional Court to "forthwith issue and cause to be immediately enforced an ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION of the Order of August 3, 1995 granting possession to private respondents of portions of the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 31527 and 31528 (now No. N-67845). This decision is immediately executory." To repeat, the absence of the records and entry of judgment should not be an excuse in delaying the execution of the Court's decision and which decision the Court declares to be "immediately executory".
With respect to private respondents' Motion for Execution Against TRO Bond (Manager's Check), the trial court is directed to hear private respondents' application for damages pursuant to Section 20, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.
The applicable provision to private respondents' claim for damages on the bond is Section 8 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. It states that the "amount of damages to be awarded to either party, upon the bond of the adverse party shall be claimed, ascertained, and awarded under the same procedure prescribed in Section 20 of Rule 57." The pertinent portion of Section 20, Rule 57 in turn provides:
"xxx
If the judgment of the appellate court be favorable to the party against whom the attachment was issued, he must claim damages sustained during the pendency of the appeal by filing an application in the appellate court, with notice to the party in whose favor the attachment was issued or his surety or sureties, before the judgment of the appellate court becomes executory. The appellate court may allow the application to be heard and decided by the trial court.
xxx"
In cases where injunction or a temporary restraining order is issued, the damages that the other party may suffer by reason of the writ are recoverable from the bond. [4] cralaw The Court has ruled in Socorro v. Aquino [5] cralaw that the dissolution of the injunction even if the injunction was obtained in good faith amounts to a determination that the injunction was wrongly obtained and a right of action on the injunction bond immediately accrues to the defendant. The dismissal of the petition in this case resulted in the dissolution of the temporary restraining order, conferring on private respondents a right of action on the injunctive bond.
Thus, the Regional Trial Court is instructed to hear and decide private respondents' Motion for Execution Against TRO Bond (Manager's Check) to determine the extent of damages sustained by private respondents. [6] cralaw The hearing on private respondents' application for damages against theP100,000.00 bond posted by petitioner should not in anyway hinder the prompt execution of the order of the Court for the immediate execution of its November 12, 2002 Decision.
WHEREFORE, the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, is ordered to forthwith issue and cause to be immediately enforced an ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION of the Order of August 3, 1995 granting possession to private respondents of portions of the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 31527 and 31528 (now No. N-67845). The Motion for Execution Against TRO Bond (Manager's Check) of private respondents is REFERRED to the same court so that it could hear and decide the claim for damages pursuant to Section 20, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.
Very truly yours,
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
[2] cralaw OSCAR M. HERRERA, REMEDIAL LAW, Vol. II, p. 250.
[3] cralaw FLORENZ D. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, Vol. I, pp. 399-400.
[4] cralaw See ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 572 (1999).
[5] cralaw 35 SCRA 373 (1970).
[6] cralaw See Philippine Charter Insurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 468 (1989).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
