Photo from Unsplash | Sasun Bughdaryan
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at naught the role of courts in disposing justiciable controversies with finality. (Marilyn B. Montehermoso v. Romeo Batuto, G.R. No. 246553, December 02, 2020)
In Harbour Center Port Terminal, Inc. v. Hon. Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino, G.R. No. 213080, May 03, 2021, the Supreme Court held that as a general rule, the execution of a judgment is allowed only when it has become final and executory. This arises when: (1) the right of appeal has been renounced or waived; (2) the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been taken; or (3) the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin. In these instances, execution shall issue as a matter of right.
Execution as a matter of Right
In Mayor Marcial Vargas v. Fortunato Cajucom, G.R. No. 171095, June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court held that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution. Its issuance is, in fact, the trial court’s ministerial duty, the only limitation being that the writ must conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated, more particularly, the orders or decrees in the dispositive portion of the decision. Even the holding in abeyance of the issuance of a writ of execution of a final and executory judgment can be considered abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states that execution shall issue as a matter of right, or motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.
However, in the same case of Harbour Center Port Terminal, Inc. v. Hon. Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino, the Supreme Court stated that an execution of a judgment or final order may be allowed even before the expiration of the period to appeal under Rule 39, Section 2(a) of the Rules of Court, which states:
(a) Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal. — On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing. (Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court)
In Harbour Center, the Court also ruled that discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing. Thus, the discretionary execution pending appeal has two requirements: (1) the jurisdictional requirement which relates to when and where it can be filed; and (2) the grounds for its issuance.
Moreover, a motion for execution pending appeal may be filed before the Regional Trial Court while it still has jurisdiction over the case and is still in possession of the original record or the record on appeal at the time the motion is filed.
(b) Execution of several, separate or partial judgments. — A several, separate or partial judgment may be executed under the same terms and conditions as execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal.
Stay of Discretionary Execution
Discretionary execution issued under Section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court may be stayed upon approval by the proper court of a sufficient supersedeas bond filed by the party against whom it is directed, conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order allowed to be executed in case it shall be finally sustained in whole or in part. The bond thus given may be proceeded against on motion with notice to the surety. (Section 3, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court)
Effect of Reversal of Executed Judgement
Where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances.
Execution by Motion or by Independent Action
A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations. (Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court)
Execution in case of Death of Party
In case of the death of a party, execution may issue or be enforced in the following manner:
(a) In case of the death of the judgment obligee, upon the application of his executor or administrator, or successor in interest;
(b) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, against his executor or administrator or successor in interest, if the judgment be for the recovery of real or personal property, or the enforcement of a lien thereon;
(c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, after execution is actually levied upon any of his property, the same may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment obligation, and the officer making the sale shall account to the corresponding executor or administrator for any surplus in his hands. (Section 7 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court)
Execution of Judgements for Money, how enforced
In Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., v. Radio Philippines Network, Inc., G.R. No. 190517, July 27, 2022, the Supreme Court explained that the the executing officer is required to first demand from the judgment debtors the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees.
The executing officer shall demand the payment either in cash, certified bank check or any other mode of payment that is acceptable to the judgment creditor. If the judgment debtors cannot pay the judgment obligation using these methods, they can opt to choose which among their personal properties can be levied upon.
If the judgment debtors do not exercise this option immediately or when they are absent or cannot be located, they then waive such right and the executing officer can levy the judgment debtors’ personal properties, if any, and then the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment.
The executing officer may also levy personal property by garnishment by reaching credits belonging to the judgment debtors and owing to them from a stranger to the litigation.
In this mode of satisfying the judgment known as garnishment, the executing officer levies on the debts due the judgment debtors including bank deposits, financial interests royalties, commissions, and other personal property not capable of manual delivery in the possession or under the control of third parties. The levy may be done only if the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash or in such other manner acceptable to the judgment obligee.
In sum, the execution of a judgment under Rule 39 begins with the determination of whether it has become final and executory, in which case execution issues as a matter of right, or whether circumstances justify discretionary execution pending appeal. Where the judgment is for money, the Rules provide specific mechanisms such as demand for payment, levy, and garnishment to satisfy the obligation.
This discussion focuses on execution as a matter of right, discretionary execution, and the enforcement of money judgments under Rule 39. Other modes of execution, such as execution of specific acts or special judgments, are governed by separate provisions of the same Rule.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply