Q: When do you execute it?
That is the most important element there. You can execute it only within a period of 5 years from entry of judgment. You can execute that judgment only within a period of 5 years. Thereafter you can no longer execute the judgment, you have to first revive the judgment. That's why some books say that there are two ways to execute the judgment, either by motion or by action. You find that in Section 6 of Rule 39.
So if the 5-year period is counted from entry of judgment, the time of entry of judgment is very very important. That's why we discussed that in Section 2, second sentence of Rule 36. Pina-underline ko sa inyo. Because this is where you count the judgment to be executed by motion. So when the judgment has become final and executory, the judgment obligee (winner in the case) will have to file a motion with the trial court (where the main action was filed). In matters of execution, no appellate court can issue a writ of
execution. Whether that appellate court is the RTC, the CA or the SC, they cannot issue a writ of execution. It must always go back to the court of origin.
So there are 2 instances therefore. If the case is filed with the MTC and judgment was rendered by the MTC and the judgment was not appealed and therefore became final and executory, you file your motion for the issuance of the writ of execution with the MTC.
If the judgment was appealed to the RTC. You cannot execute it, as a matter of right because it is not yet executory. And as long as the appellate court is concerned, the judgment is not yet final because the appellate court has something else to do yet. Now suppose, the appellate court affirm in toto the decision of the MTC and there is no more appeal to the CA, the judgment becomes final and executory.
Q: Which judgment?
A: The judgment affirming the decision of the MTC.
Q: But what is the judgment that you are going to execute? What you are going to execute is the judgment of the MTC. So where will you file the motion?
A: You file it with the MTC and not with the RTC.
The old rule says that in order for the trial court to rule on your motion for the issuance of your writ of execution, it must have the copies of the records of the case because as you will find out in Rules 40-42, when the case is appealed, one of the requirements for appeal is to elevate the records to the appellate court. And when the appellate court affirms and it becomes final and executory, ibabalik yung records sa baba.
Now, you don't have to wait anymore for the records from the appellate court. You can file a motion even if the records are still with the appellate court in the trial court. But the requirement is you get a certified true copy of the judgment of the appellate court together with the entry of judgment. And then you file it with the trial court. So motion for the issuance of the writ of execution must strictly comply with Rule 15 on motion, otherwise it must be in writing, it must be set for hearing, and it must be served on the adverse party (Sec 4 of Rule 15).
Q: Rationale?
A: To give the judgment obligor the chance to contest it.
Q: And what is the basis for contesting?
A: Because remember, it is not discretionary on the part of the court to issue or not to issue a writ of execution. The issuance of the writ of execution is ministerial on the part of the trial court. So that if the trial court does not issue the writ of execution, the trial court may be subjected to mandamus. But under the present rule, you don't have to recourse to mandamus anymore because you file your motion with the trial court simply attaching a certified copy of the decision of the appellate court together with the entry of judgment. Set it for hearing. And as a matter of course, the trial court will issue the writ of execution.
January 11, 2007
Argana v Republic of the Philippines (443 SCRA 184) November 19, 2004
So it is wrong to say. That statement is wrong in the book because of that decision. I went over it. I've read it. You must have read it too. And I admonish you to read that case so you would know.
FACTS:
This is the case against the heirs of the former mayor of Muntinlupa Argana and company. Marami ito. 8 individuals and 2 corporations are the defendants here in the original case.
This is a case filed before the Sandiganbayan. And the nature of the action was ill-gotten wealth of former Mayor Argana of Muntinlupa City. Now in the course of the hearing, definitely, because this is an ill-gotten wealth case under EO 14-A in relation to the creation of the PCGG. This particular case, while it was in progress before the Sandiganbayan, several pleadings were filed. And you know before the Sandiganbayan, the complainant or the plaintiff was the PCGG. The PCGG was later on represented by the OSG.
In the course of the hearing, after several pleadings, motions and postponements filed, they came out with a compromise agreement. There was a compromise agreement between the Arganas and the PCGG. This compromise agreement principally states that 75% of the properties of the Arganas will be ceded in favor of the government and only 25% will remain with the Arganas. Take note, percentage ang pinaguusapan. 75% of the properties subject matter of the case of ill-gotten wealth will be given back to the government and only 25% will remain with the Arganas.. The PCGG agreed and the compromise agreement was executed and even approved by President Fidel Ramos. And so, on the basis of the compromise agreement submitted to the Sandiganbayan, the Sandiganbayan rendered a judgment on compromise. So there was a judgment on compromise. Later on, the OSG, upon review of the compromise agreement, even after the judgment of compromise has already been rendered, found out that it was entered fraudulently. In other words, the compromise agreement was very very unfavorable to the government. Why? Because the 75% property ceded to the government was worth only about Php 4 million. The 25% remaining with the Arganas was worth Php 3.++ BILLION. In other words, the 75% was only .15% worth of the entire property while the 25% was worth 99.85%. So this was very unconscionable. It was entered into in connivance with the PCGG Commissioners and the heirs of Argana.
So upon the review of the OSG, the government filed a motion to rescind together with a prayer of annulment of the judgment on compromise. Remember that a judgment on compromise is immediately executory, it is not appealable. But because this was entered in fraud of the government, what the OSG did was to file a motion to rescind the compromise agreement with prayer of cancellation or nullification on the judgment on compromise. Hindi pwedeng i-appeal, certiorari has already lapsed because in certiorari you have only 60 days. Matagal na ito. The Sandiganbayan, looking into it, did not dismiss the case but treated the motion to rescind as a petition for relief from judgment. Yun ang catch. The motion to rescind was treated as a petition for relief from judgment because there was a prayer for annulment of the judgment on compromise. The respondent this time (Arganas) says, if this is a petition for relief, it was filed out of time, because under Section 3 of Rule 38, it must be filed within 60 days from knowledge of the judgment and 6 months from entry of judgment. Matagal na ito e. It is already outside of the reglementary period. When the Sandiganbayan went over the case, they discovered that it was filed 67 days from knowledge but within the 6 month period from entry of judgment or from judgment. Because a judgment on compromise, being immediately executory, has no entry of judgment or the entry of judgment becomes immaterial. So that the 60 day period being a judgment on compromise and the 6 month period cannot be counted from knowledge or entry but it must be counted (both 60 days and 6 month period) from rendition of judgment. And counting from the rendition judgment, being the time that the parties came to know of it, 67 days have lapsed outside of the 60 day period.
SUPREME COURT DECISION:
The SC, on certiorari, said (and i would emphasize this statement) both periods provided for in Sec 3 of Rule 38 must be STRICTLY complied with but nonetheless, it does not mean that there is no exception to the rule. So the rule remains that it must be complied with STRICTLY. The 60 day period and the 6 month period from knowledge and from entry of judgment. This Argana case is an exception. And in fact the rule in Section 3 of Rule 38 will not strictly apply. Why? Because first, there is no point from which knowledge should be counted from or from which entry should be counted from because it is a judgment on compromise. And secondly, it was not a petition for relief per se but it was a motion to rescind taken as a petition for relief.
Q: Why did the SC make this as an exception?
A: First, because the government is involved. For it will be disadvantageous to the government. Second, Fraud was the reason. Against the government.
Therefore, petition denied. Panalo ang gobyerno. What do you expect?
NOTE: The Supreme Court can always relax cases. Because the SC is not governed by the Rules. Because one time the SC can decide one way while on another time, the SC can decide on another way. Like for example the execution pending appeal we are dealing here. Before, Old Age is not a good reason for execution pending appeal, but later on, i think it is 403 SCRA in the case of Far East Bank and Trust Co. vs. Toh, Sr., the SC said that old age is a good reason for execution pending appeal. See? Bakit ganoon? You try to read the case and look also who was the lawyer for Toh. The lawyer for Toh was the very famous Mike Arroyo.
Those doctrinal cases never change. May side changes but these are not ratio decidendi decisions but an obiter dictum. Settled? So we maintain na tama pa din ang lecture ko.
Villamor case 441 SCRA. Read it.
So let's proceed with execution.
Q: I was telling you yesterday that there are two kinds of execution of a judgment.
A: GENERAL RULE is that a judgment which can be executed must be a judgment not just final but executory. In other words, the right to appeal as well as the right for reconsideration or new trial, the period has already lapsed.
So under Section 1, it is execution as a matter of right. Under Section 2, it is execution by leave of court, otherwise known as discretionary execution or execution pending appeal. So when you read those 3 terms, pare-pareho lang yun.
Q: Under Section 1, when is it a matter of right?
A: When the judgment has become executory, it is ministerial on the part of the trial court to issue the writ of execution. Ministerial to issue the writ of execution.
Q: If it is ministerial, why is it required on the part of the judgment obligee or the judgment creditor to file a motion?
A: In order to afford the judgment obligor due process. Because he may still file an objection.
Q: And what is the possible ground for objection?
A: The finality of the judgment. Because as I was saying, as far as the court is concerned the judgment may become already executory but as far as the judgment obligor the judgment is not executory yet because it was not received by him or he did not know about the judgment having been received by other party or persons other than himself.
NOTE: Another thing we should remember here is that only the trial court that can issue the writ of execution. Whether that case has already reached the SC, the SC cannot and should not issue the writ of execution.
So if it started with the MTC, and it reached the SC, when it comes to execution, it is still the MTC which should execute.
Q: If it is the MTC or if it is the trial court, as the case may be, which should execute?
What is necessary?
A: Simply a motion for the issuance of the writ of the execution complying with Rule 15 particularly Sections 4-6. By then it is ministerial on the part of the judge or the court to issue the writ of execution.
Q: But suppose the case started with the MTC but upon finality of the judgment, the
judgment was appealed to the RTC. And then the RTC affirms the judgment, and the judgment obligor never went up to the CA, therefore, the judgment has become final and executory. Which judgment has become final and executory?
A: Technically, it is the judgment affirming the decision of the MTC.
Q: But what are we suppose to execute?
A: Not the judgment of the RTC but the judgment of the MTC.
Q: How do you go about it?
A: You still file your motion for execution with the MTC. Never with the RTC. As a matter of procedure, the MTC, which should now issue the writ of execution, should await the records from the RTC. But under the present rules there is no need for that. Because by simply getting a copy of the entry of judgment (which judgment? the judgment affirming the judgment of the MTC) as well as the judgment of the RTC, affirming the judgment of the MTC, attaching the same to your motion for execution filed in the MTC on that basis, the MTC can already issue the writ of execution.
Q: Suppose the MTC does not issue the writ of execution, what is now your remedy?
A: Ordinarily, the remedy is mandamus. Because the issuance of the writ of execution is only a ministerial act. But under the present rules, you don't have to file mandamus. It is very easy now, you simply file a motion with the RTC (which is the appellate court here) praying that an order be issued directing the MTC to issue the writ of execution. No need for mandamus. Although mandamus is a remedy, but it is a very lengthy procedure as a remedy.
Section 2 speaks of Execution pending Appeal. So in the same example that I gave, the MTC renders judgment, under Rule 40, that judgment is appealable within a period of 15 days with the RTC. Within that period, the judgment obligee wants to execute it pending appeal he may file a motion for execution pending appeal with the MTC.
Q: Suppose the appellant has already filed his notice of appeal, since the notice of appeal under Rule 40 must be filed with the Trial Court, when should the motion for execution pending appeal be filed?
A: Notwithstanding the filing of the notice of appeal, the motion for the issuance of the writ of execution must still be filed with the trial court, in this instance the MTC, as long as the records of the case have not been transmitted to the RTC. This is what you call exercise of residual jurisdiction.
Q: Suppose the records of the case, pursuant to the notice of appeal, have already been transmitted to the RTC, where will you file?
A: Since the notice of appeal renders loss of jurisdiction over the subject matter as far as the MTC is concerned, you file your motion for execution pending appeal with the RTC.
Should the RTC resolve your motion in your favor, nevertheless the RTC cannot issue the writ of execution. It can only issue an order directing the MTC to issue the writ of execution pending appeal.
Q: How do you stay the execution of a judgment?
A: You stay that by filing a supersedeas bond. This is one meaning of a supersedeas bond found in the Rules. Don't confuse that with the supersedeas bond found in Rule 70 (unlawful detainer and forcible entry). Because the supersedeas bond referred to in Rule 70 is equivalent to the amount of unpaid rentals. The supersedeas bond here is in the amount subject to the discretion of the court. We should answer for any damages that the judgment or the appellant might incur.
Q: What are the instance when a judgment cannot be stayed? Why?
A: Because of their very nature. You find that in Section 4. Injunction, Receivership, Accounting, Support or such other judgments declared to be immediately executory unless otherwise ordered by the trial court.
To illustrate:
If you get an injunctive relief, it is a matter of urgency. So if you stay the implementation of a writ of preliminary injunction then you defeat the very purpose for an injunctive relief. That is why it cannot be stayed.
The same thing with support. Humihingi ng support kasi mamamatay na sa gutom. But if you can still stay that, you defeat the very purpose of order of support.
NOTE: The writ of execution is not addressed to any party but rather it is addressed to the sheriff, that is why a party, for not complying with the writ of execution, cannot be held liable for contempt. Only the sheriff may be liable for contempt because the writ of execution is addressed to the sheriff. And the sheriff must implement the writ of execution immediately. If he does not implement the writ of execution, he may be held liable for contempt of court.
Q: But suppose the sheriff found out that the judgment obligee is dead?
A: Therefore the sheriff may cause, still, the implementation of the writ of execution through the executor, administrator or successor-in-interest of the judgment obligee.
Q: But in the case the judgment obligor is dead?
A: The writ of execution can only be implemented against the executor or administrator of the judgment obligor if the action is for recovery of real or personal property or for enforcement of a lien thereon. Why is this so? Because of Section 1 of Rule 86 and because of Section 20 of Rule 3 which we have studied. Money claims, specially if it is based on contracts, Section 20 - Contractual Money Claims of Rule 3. Upon the death of the defendant, the case shall not be dismissed but it should continue up to entry of judgment. And no writ of execution can issue because it will be charged as a money claim against the estate under Rule 86.
NOTE: That is why it's said there if a writ of execution is supposed to be implemented against a deceased judgment obligor, take note, that it can be implemented against the
NOTE: That is why it's said there if a writ of execution is supposed to be implemented against a deceased judgment obligor, take note, that it can be implemented against the