RULE 39 which the writ is issued (DOROTEA TANONGON vs.
FELICIDAD
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
Discussion: Now we go to Rule 39 – Execution, satisfaction and effect
of judgments. I usually discuss this last because actually in all cases,
this is the final incident, this is the fruit of litigation. Unsa may sense
kung nadaog ka sa kaso if you cannot execute it? So this is how you
feel that ypu are already a winner. Because kung naa kay decision in
your favour but you cannot execute, all you have is a piece of paper.
So lets now go to the Rules on execution.
Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. — Execution
shall issue as a matter of right, on 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.
(1a)
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. (n)
Discussion: Section 1 talks about execution as a matter of right. So
when you say execution as a matter of right it is now the ministerial
duty of the court to issue a writ of execution. Because the case is
already final and executory, so when will the judgment be final and
executory and execution is now a matter of right? When for example,
no appeal has been filed, and then the reglementary period within
which to appeal has already lapsed, so wala na, the decision or
judgment is now final and executory. Or under the second paragraph
kung naay appeal, na perfected pero naresolve napud siya, and then
nahuman na, naa nay MR, unya nadeny gihapon, so naa nay final and
executory decision. So again here, execution is a matter of right.
So asa man nato i-file ang motion for execution under section 1? The
rule says na, it could be applied for in the court of origin, so meaning,
kung gikan siya sa RTC for example, unya gi-appeal siya to the Court
of Appeals, napildi, and then adto napud ta sa Supreme Court, pildi
gihapon, and then the decision now becomes final and executory. Asa
man ta mag-appeal? Didto ta mag-appeal sa RTC. Kinsa man ang
magfile sa motion for execution? Ofcourse the winning party, the
judgement obligee.
So unsa man ang requirements sa motion? Dapat i-attach nato ang
certified true judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to
be enforced and of the entry, with notice to the adverse party. So
motion for execution.
Pwede pud na didto sa appellate court i-file ang motion, pero again
that’s the exception, when the interest of justice so requires, so here,
the appellate court will now direct the court of origin to issue the writ of
execution. So si court of origin gihapon, si RTC, ang mag issue sa writ
of execution. And then ang approval lang is sa appellate court. Lahi na
siya ang order ha granting execution and writ of execution itself. So,
ang order granting execution, mao na siya ang order na i-issue sa
court, in response to the motion for execution, but the writ of execution
itself its usually prepared by the sheriff so mao na siya ang dalahon
didto inig execute, the writ of execution, under the authority ofcourse of
the Court.
EXECUTION DEFINED
Execution is a remedy afforded by law for the enforcement of a
judgment, its object being to obtain satisfaction of the decision on
SAMSON, ET AL., G.R. No. 140889, May 9, 2002).
Execution of a final judgment is the fruit and end of the suit
(BONGCAC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. Nos. 156687-88, May 21,
2009).
CLASSES OF EXECUTION
As to nature, execution can be:
1. COMPULSORY, or EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
(Section 1);
2. DISCRETIONARY, or EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL
(Section 2).
As to how it is enforced (Section 6), execution can be: 
1. EXECUTION BY MOTION;
2. EXECUTION BY INDEPENDENT ACTION.
Discussion: So we have different classes of execution, as to nature,
we have:
1. Compulsory Execution or Execution as a matter of right – so
that is the one in section 1, this happens when the decision
or judgement has already become Final and Executory(F&E
for brevity).
2. Discretionary execution or execution pending appeal
(Section 2) – so meaning it depends upon the court kung i-
allow niya ang execution so kani siya, wala pa nag F&E ang
decision or judgment pero sa Rules, allowed ang execution
pending appeal.
Now as to the enforcement, under section 6, execution can be:
1. By motion – this usually happens pag within 5 years from the
time that the judgment has become F&E so by motion lang.
2. Motion by independent action – meaning you have to file a
case for revival of the judgment. So , this is after the lapse of
5 years, so dili naka pwede by motion, but it has to be by
indeoendent action.
Jurisdiction Pending Appeal
RESIDUAL JURISDICTION refers to the authority of a trial court to
issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the
parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve
compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution
pending appeal in accordance with Sec. 2 of Rule 39, and allow
withdrawal of the appeal provided these are done:
A. Prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on
appeal even if the appeals have already been perfected; or
B. In case of a petition for review under Rule 42, before the
Court of appeals gives due course to the petition (Sec. 8,
Rule 42, Rules of Court).
Discussion: In relation to execution, we discuss residual jurisdiction of
the court, so again when we relate this to Rule 39 on execution, we are
referring to what stage of the proceeding will the court of origin still
have the power to implement its own decision or to order execution
pending appeal. Like for example, the case originated, in the RTC and
it is appealed to the CA, so at what point in time can the RTC, if for
example, the judgment or the decision can be executed pending
appeal, when can the RTC here order execution, it is when that time,
when the RTC still has residual jurisdiction. So we already discussed
before kung kanusa nay residual jurisdiction so court, so for example if
it is an ordinary appeal so prior to the transmittal of the original record
or record in appeal, naa pay power si Court of origin to order execution
pending appeal, or if it is a case of petition for review under Rule 42, so
meaning, for example, diba the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction, so maka exercise siya or maka order siya ug execution
pending appeal if the appeal has not yet been given due course
meaning the petition for review has not been given due course,
pursuant to section 8 of Rule 42 of the ROC. So prior to that, pwede
pa. Now after that, like going back to letter A, kung na transmit na sa
CA ang record, original record, or record in appeal or in letter B, kung
given due course na ni CA ang petition for review, pwede pa ba ang
execution pending appeal? Possible gihapon, but it will not be the RTC
who will order, you file the motion with the CA. Because, wala nay
residual jurisdiction ang Court of origin after these periods or stages
mentioned in letters A and B.
Jurisdiction After Finality of Judgment
Can the court execute its own judgment even if by the finality of the
judgment the court loses jurisdiction?
One of the effects of the finality of judgment is that the court loses
jurisdiction over the case. When a court loses jurisdiction, it is said that
it can no longer act on the case. What is meant by this statement is
that, the court can no longer change its own judgment. The judgment is
beyond the power of the court to change or alter. The statement does
not cover the aspect of execution.
A court that cannot execute its own judgment is a powerless court.
Thus, in order to serve the ends of justice, a court must be able to
enforce its own judgment even after it is deemed to have lost
jurisdiction over the case. Verily, jurisdiction is the power of the court to
act on a case, to try it, to decide and to enforce its judgment.
Discussion: Jurisdiction after finality of judgement. So, the question
here is can the court execute its own judgment even if by the finality of
the judgment the court loses jurisdiction? Well, ofcourse. The court,
even if we just follow our common sense no, what is the use of a
judgment or a decision which you cannot implement? Diba, so
meaning, even if technically, we are saying na after the judgment
becomes final, the court loses jurisdiction over the case, it only means
that the court can no longer change or modify its decision. So the
decision shall stand as it is and it is now subject to implementation.
Because a court that cannot execute its own judgment is a powerless
court. So it is part and parcel of the authority of the court to be able to
implement its own decision. So that’s just the meaning of a judgement
becoming final and executory.
[SLIDES] It can even be said that the power to enforce and execute a
judgment is inherent in a court. Section 5 of Rule 134 provides that it is
an inherent power of the court to compel obedience to its judgments,
orders and processes. Furthermore, Section 6 states that:
 
Sec. 6. Means to carry jurisdiction into effect - When by law
jurisdiction is conferred on a court or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs,
processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be
employed by such court or officer; and if the procedure to be followed
in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by law
or by these Rules, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be
adopted which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or Rules.
Discussion: The power to enforce and execute a judgment is inherent
in a court. This is provided for also in Section 5 of Rule 134 na, under
Section 6, it says all auxiliary writs, processes and other means
necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such court or
officer, so meaning, when by law, jurisdiction is conferred on a court.
The court can issue processes, orders, decisions and it can exercise
such authority to implement that decision, to carry into effect such
writs, processes and other orders. So inherent siya sa power of the
court to implement its own decision.
PART OF THE JUDGMENT TO BE EXECUTED
 
The dispositive portion (also called "fallo") of the judgment is that part
which is subject to execution (Sec. 8, Rule 39, Rules of Court).
This portion of the judgment finally invests rights upon the parties, sets
conditions for the exercise of those rights, and imposes the
corresponding duties and obligations. If there is a conflict between the
dispositive portion of the decision and the body thereof, the dispositive
portion controls irrespective of what appears in the body (GLOBE
TELECOM, INC. vs. FLORENDO FLORES, 390 SCRA 201).
Discussion: You have read a decision diba, sa SCRA, mga supreme
court decisions, so it is the fallo or the dispositive portion of the
judgment which is being executed. Kanang mga “Wherefore, premises
considered, the court hereby directs that defendant should return the
land covered by TCT No. 1234.. to the plaintiff…” diba we discussed
before sa judgment no kung unsa nang fallo. So in case of conflict
between the body of the decision and the dispositive portion, which
shall prevail? We discussed that already, it is the dispositive portion,
the fallo, irrespective of what appears in the body as discussed in the
case of Globe telecom, inc. Vs. Florendo flores
WRIT OF EXECUTION MUST CONFORM WITH JUDGMENT
 
The writ of execution should conform to the dispositive portion of the
decision to be executed and the execution is void if it is in excess of
and beyond the original judgment or award for it is a settled general
principle that a writ of execution must conform strictly to every essential
particulars of the judgment promulgated (EQUATORIAL REALTY
DEVELOPMENT, INC. vs. MAYFAIR THEATER, INC., 332 SCRA
139).
Discussion: In execution also, it is basic na the writ of execution must
conform with the judgement, lahi ng writ of execution, lahi ng decision.
So the court will first issue a decision and then the decision will have its
dispositive portion or the fallo, and then if the defeated party does not
voluntarily comply with the decision, so here, the prevailing party will
move for the execution of the decision, so motion for the issuance of a
writ of execution. The court will approve that and then the writ of
execution will follow.
Now the writ of execution, it will not recite everything that is stated in
the decision, it will only recite the dispositive portion of the decision.
Although in some cases, it will make specific, kung unsa man ng
nakabutang sa dispositive portion, klaruhon na siya sa court in the
execution. So for example, nay mga computation, nasa decision,
ofcourse. Like, for example, the defendant is hereby ordered to pa the
amount of 1 million pesos, plus interest at 1% per month until he finally
complies with the decision, so here, pila man ng 1% per month? So
pwede pud na nga sa writ of execution, i-compute na na as of the date
na gi-execute na ang decision. Naa poy mahitabo na ang writ of
execution, does not conform with the tenor of the decision, malahi siya,
like, I don’t know if I’ve explained this to you before, for example sa
tenor sa decision ang liability sa debtors kay joint lang so by the use of
the words “and”, A,B,C and D. Diba that is joint? The general rule when
it comes to plurality of debtors, now pag abot sa writ of execution,
nakabutang na kay “OR”. That converts it into a solidary obligation. So
dili na siya pwede because it varies the tenor of the judgment. The writ
of execution should conform to the dispositive portion of the decision.
So dili pwede na malahi ang tenor as discussed in this case of
Equatorial Realty Development, inc. vs. Mayfair Theater, inc.
[SLIDES]
• The writ may not vary the terms of the judgment to be
executed (BUAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 235 SCRA
424). Thus, if the judgment does not provide for the payment
of interest, the writ of execution cannot modify the judgment
by requiring the judgment obligor to pay interest. That part of
 the writ imposing interest is void (SOLIDBANK
CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS 379 SCRA 159).
• An order of execution which does not substantially conform
to the dispositive portion of the decision sought to be
executed or which varies or goes beyond the terms of the
judgment it seeks to enforce is null and void (LAO vs. KING,
G.R. No. 160358, August 31, 2006).
Discussion: What is the status of that writ of execution which does not
substantially conform to the dispositive portion of the decision? Then
that writ of execution is null and void. You can move to quash the writ
of execution.
GREATER METROPOLITAN MANILA SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE vs. JANCOM ENVIRONMENTAL
CORPORATION (G.R. No. 163663, June 30, 2006
FACTS: Then President Fidel V. Ramos created an Executive
Committee to oversee and develop waste-to-energy projects for the
waste disposal sites in San Mateo, Rizal and Carmona. JANCOM
was one of the bidders for the San Mateo Waste Disposal Site. The
Executive Committee approved the recommendation of the Pre-
qualification, Bids and Awards Committee to declare JANCOM as
the sole complying bidder for the San Mateo Waste Disposal Site.
On December 19, 1997, a contract was entered into by the
Republic of the Philippines and JANCOM. The contract was
submitted for approval to President Ramos who subsequently
endorsed it to then incoming President Joseph E. Estrada.
Owing to the clamor of the residents of Rizal, the Estrada
administration ordered the closure of the San Mateo landfill.
Petitioner GMMSWMC thereupon adopted a Resolution not to
pursue the contract with JANCOM.
On March 14, 2000, JANCOM filed a petition for certiorari with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City where it was docketed as
Special Civil Action No. 1955, to declare the GMMSWMC
Resolution and the acts of the MMDA calling for bids for and
authorizing the forging of a new contract for the Metro Manila waste
management as illegal, unconstitutional and void and to enjoin
petitioners from implementing the Resolution and making another
award in lieu thereof.
The RTC and the Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of JANCOM.
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA Decision and declared the
contract valid and perfected, albeit ineffective and unimplementable
pending approval by the President.
Upon motion, the RTC issued an order directing the parties to
faithfully comply with the terms of the contract.
Issue: Is the order of execution valid?
Ruling: In issuing the writ of execution, the trial court in effect
ordered the enforcement of the contract despite the High Court's
unequivocal pronouncement that albeit valid and perfected, the
contract shall become effective only upon approval by the
President. Indubitably, the alias writ of execution varied the tenor of
this Court's judgment, went against essential portions and
exceeded the terms thereof. The execution directed by the trial
court being out of harmony with the judgment, legal implications
cannot save it from being found to be fatally defective.
Discussion: This case of Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste
management committee vs. Jancom environmental corporation is
another example of a case where the order of the court of execution
was not in conformity with the decision. So here what was subject was
a contract entered into by the Republic of the PH and Jancom. So
there was a case in relation to that contract, subsequently it reached
the supreme court but all of them, RTC, CA and SC, declared the
contract valid and perfected although ineffective and unimplementable
pending approval by the President. Now in the execution of that
decision, ang tenor napud sa RTC sa order of execution was that the
RTC directed the parties to faithfully comply with the terms of the
contract. So that was the only tenor of the order of the execution. Will
that be valid? In that case, the order of execution already modified or
varied the tenor of the judgment which was sought to be implemented.
Because in the judgment nay condition, which is pending approval of
the president, so the contract was valid and perfected although
pending the approval of the president, it was still ineffective and
unimplementable. Pero sa order of execution, nawala na ang condition,
it became a pure and simple obligation to comply with the contract, so
this is not allowed. The order is null and void.
AGAINST WHOM EXECUTION SHALL ISSUE
 
Generally, execution can issue only against a (losing) party to the case
and not against one who is a complete stranger because majority of
judgments are in personam. They are only enforceable against the
parties themselves or their successors-in-interest – people who derive
their rights from him. A judgment can never be enforced against a
complete stranger who never had his day in court (Cruzcosa vs.
Concepcion, 101 Phil.146; Castañeda vs. De Leon, 55 O.G. 625,
Jan.26, 1959; Bacolod vs. Enriquez, Dec. 21, 1959).
Discussion: Now when a writ of execution is issued, against whom is
it issued? Ofcourse, general rule to the losing party. How about kung
wala didto ang losing party, namatay siya in the meantime, or naa
siyay gipapuyo sa yuta para madefeat ang execution. Well, the
judgment as well as the execution would apply to the party himself or
his successors-in-interest or those persons who derive their rights from
him. So that will be the Rule.
Now how about kung for example, recovery of possession of parcel of
land, and then the case was filed against the registered owner of the
land, but in the meantime, naa diay nakapalit sa land. And then, upon
the execution of that judgment where the defendant, the registered
owner, is ordered by the court to deliver possession of the land to the
plaintiff, unya pag adto didto sa sheriff sa yuta, lahi namn ang
nakapuyo, dili naman tong registered owner, and then that person in
possession would allege that they are innocent purchasers for value.
Ang question here, are they bound by the decision? Can the writ of
execution be also enforced against them? Now didto mag-apply ang
law on land registration because if for example the sale happened and
then in the title over the land, nay naka-annotate na notice of lis
pendens, the buyers are bound by the decisions of the court. The
buyers cannot allege na they are innocent purchasers for value
because by the annotation of the notice of lis pendens, they are aware,
they are notified of the fact that the land is under litigation, theyre
taking the risk if they buy the land. But for example, walay naka-
annotate didto sa title na it is subject of a pending case, so pwede na
iraise ni possessor of the land na he is really an innocent purchaser for
value. So, would the decision be binding against that person? That
innocent purchaser for value? NO. Because, number 1 again under the
land registration diba, one is charged with notice only of those liens
and encumbrances which appear on the title. Number 2, even in the
law on jurisdiction diba, if you are not summoned in the case, you did
not voluntarily appear in the case, you were not impleaded in the case,
the court does not acquire jurisdiction over your person. So the court
cannot enforce a judgment against you because it would violate your
right to due process. You will be deprived of your property without an
opportunity to be heard diba so no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law. You are entitled to your
day in court. So you cannot be deprived. How about, muingon siya na
successor-in-interest mana siya? Kung unsa ang rights ni seller, that
successor-in-interest merely steps into the shoes of the seller. No,
because we’re talking here of the application of the land registration
law, naa siyay mga possible defenses which can only be raised by him.
Which cannot even be raised by the seller in that case which is the
defendant in the case for recovery of possession. Like again, the
defense that he is an innocent purchaser for value, iyaha ran a nga
defense, so if he is not given his day in court, he is not included in the
case, wala gyud naraise to na defense, he was not heard at all on that
defense. So he cannot be deprived of that property without having his
day in court. So that’s the essence of execution, again general rule
only against the losing party or his successors in interest or his privies,
those who derive their rights from him.
COMPULSORY EXECUTION
 
Execution is a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to
appeal and no appeal was perfected from a judgment or order that
disposes of the action or proceeding (Sec. 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court).
Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party can
have it executed as a matter of right, and the issuance of a writ of
execution becomes the ministerial duty of the court (BUAYA vs.
STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO., INC., 342 SCRA 576).
COMPULSORY EXECUTION
 
When is execution a matter of right? In the following cases:
 
1. Section 1, paragraph 1 – no appeal; judgment becomes final;
2. Section 1, paragraph 2 – there is an appeal; once the CA
judgment becomes final;
3. Section 4 – Judgment in an action for injunction,
receivership, accounting, support, judgment declared to be
immediately executory;
4. Rule 70 and under Summary Rules – Judgments in Forcible
Entry and Unlawful Detainer cases. With respect to Rule 70,
take note that immediate execution is warranted but it can be
stayed;
Small Claims – the decision shall final and unappelable .
Discussion: We discussed that in Section 1, execution becomes a
matter of right, so now it is a ministerial duty of the Court, once there is
a motion for the issuance of the writ of execution to order the execution
of the judgment in the case. Timani ha, dapat nay motin, dili pud
pwede na si court, on its own, mu-issue lang ug writ of execution.
There has to be a motion, because malay nato basi dili na diay
interesado si prevailing party to enforce the judgment so nganong kita
man ang mangusog? So we wait for the motion. Now section 1 is not
the only instance, there are other instances, or cases, scattered under
the rules of court:
Section 1, paragraph 1 of Rule 39 – when judgment has become final
and there is no appeal.
Section 1, paragraph 2 – there is an appeal, but the appeal was
resolved and then that decision resolving the appeal became final
Section 4 – in actions for injunction, receivership, accounting,
support where the rule says na the judgment is immediately executor.
Now take note ha na when the law says immediately executor, it
doesn’t mean na final and executor na siya, lahi ng fina and executor
sa immediately executor. When you say final, nahuman nagyud ang
kaso, wala nay appeal, na enter na siya in the book of judgment of the
court na final na siya. Kung muingon kag immediately executor, wala
pa siya na final, pwede pa gani siya na on appeal pa siya, pero pwede
na siya ma-implement dayun. So that is the meaning of immediately
executory.
Rule 70 and under Summary Rules – forcible entry and unlawful
detainer, again immediately executory gihapon ni sila na mga
judgment, kani na kaso. Although gi-appeal nimo ang kaso, pero the
prevailing party can already execute this.
Small Claims – also because in small claims the decision shall be final
and unappeallable, so we discussed here that if it says unappeallable,
still it can be reviewed or it can be assailed by Rule 65, certiorari, if
there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. So kung decisions or judgments involving these cases we
say na the execution is compulsory because the rule says na
immediately executor so maka-execute gyud unless na for example in
the summary rules, mag-counter bond ang pikas to stop the execution,
but again that’s another story.
NO NEED FOR JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF FINALITY
 
• Judgments and orders become final and executory by
operation of law and not by judicial declaration. The trial
court need not even pronounce the finality of the order as the
same becomes final by operation of law. Once the appeal
period expires without an appeal or a motion for
reconsideration or new trial being perfected, the decision or
order becomes final. (TESTATE OF MARIA MANUEL VDA.
DE BIASCAN vs. BIASCAN, 374 SCRA 621, RODRIGUEZ
vs. ROBLES, G.R. No. 182645, December 4, 2009)
• Its finality becomes a fact when the reglementary period for
appeal lapses, and no appeal is perfected within such period
(VLASON ENTERPRISES VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 310
SCRA 26).
So, if execution is a matter of right and then the duty of the court to
issue a writ of execution is ministerial, but then the court, without
justifiable reason refuses to issue the writ of execution:
Q: What is the remedy of the party? Who was aggrieved by that
refusal of the court?
A: The remedy here is to file a petition for mandamus, as
discussed in these cases of Valdez vs Financiera Manila and Sia vs.
Villanueva.
What is mandamus? That is explained in the case of National Home
Mortgage Finance Corporation vs Abayari, et al.
National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation vs Abayari, et al.
G.R. NO. 166508 : October 2, 2009
To begin with, a writ of mandamus is a command issuing from a
court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or
sovereign, directed to an inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to
some corporation or person, requiring the performance of a
particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official
station of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from operation of
law.36 It is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of
a ministerial duty37 which, as opposed to a discretionary one, is
that which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in
a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal
authority, without regard to or the exercise of his or its own
judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.
This is in Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. So when we say mandamus.
The court has no discretion whether to approve or disapprove. Once it
is asked for by the prevailing party, and the Rule says that it is
immediately executory, the court has no other option but to grant the
writ of execution. So that is the essence of madamus: to compel the
court to that which the Rule or the law requires him to do or perform as
a ministerial duty.
However, there are instances when even when the judgment has
already become final and executory, it cannot be enforced. The court
may refuse to have the judgment executed. What are these instances?
1. When the judgment has already been executed by the
voluntary compliance thereof by the party (Cunanan vs
Court of Appeals)
So for example, the judgment says that the debtor should pay one
million and then, prior to that nag-compromise agreement. Because
compromise agreement can be entered into even after final judgment.
So niduol dayon si debtor kay creditor. Bayad ko dayon. Pero pwede
pahangyoa ko 950,000 na lang? okay nisugot si creditor
nagpirmahanay sila og kasulatan, writing, agreement na in
consideration of the judgment, the creditor is accepting 950,000 as full
and complete settlement of the claim in the case. So kung Makita na
sa court na there is already settlement, then there is no need for an
execution. Otherwise, it would result into unjust enrichment on the part
of the prevailing party. Human na man siyag ka-execute. There is
nothing more to execute.
2. NOVATION. When the judgment has been novated by the
parties (Fu Cam Lu vs. Yap Fauco; Dormitorio vs
Fernandez)
Diba novation is a mode of extinguishing an obligation. In novation,
there is an old obligation which is valid, and then the parties entered
into a new obligation, and that new obligation extinguishes the old one.
Again, judgment of the court says the debtor one million to the creditor.
Prior to the execution, niduol si debtor kay creditor and then nagsabot
sila na instead of one million, ihatag na lang ni debtor and iyahang
sakyanan didto kay creditor. Actually that is a case of dation in
payment which is also a form of novation. So nagsabot na sila, nag-
agree, nagpirmahanay. And so that agreement (to deliver the car to the
creditor) novated the obligation of the debtor to pay one million
pursuant to the judgment. So the obligation under the judgment is now
extinguished by a new obligation to deliver the car. So in that case, the
creditor who is the prevailing party in the case can no longer implement
the judgment of the court which was novated by the agreement of the
parties. The law does not prohibit the parties from entering into
compromise agreement, novation even if there is already final and
executor decisions.
3. When a petition for relief is filed and a preliminary injunction
is granted in accordance with Section 5 of Rule 38; when the
court issues a writ of preliminary injunction or a TRO for the
suspension of the execution of a judgment.
4. When the judgment sought to be executed is conditional
(Co-Unijieng vs Hijos Mabalacat Sugar Company) or when
the judgment sought to be executed is incomplete (Del
Rosario vs Villegas, Ignacio vs Hilarion).
 As we already discussed, these judgments
are NULL AND VOID.
5. When the facts and circumstances transpire which would
render execution inequitable or unjust (Bachrach Corporation
vs Court of Appeals)
 LCYE Note: please remember this. This is
what we call the supervening events which
would render the execution inequitable or
unjust.
6. When execution is sought for more than 5 years from its
entry of judgment (Cunanan vs Court of Appeals)
 Why? Because here, if it is more than 5
years, what you do is you file an independent
action for revival of judgment. Ang Motion for
Execution can only be done within five years
from the time of entry of judgment.
7. When the execution is sought against property exempt from
execution under Section 13 of Rule 39
8. When refusal to execute the judgment has become
imperative in the higher interest of judgment (Philippine
Veterans Bank vs Intermediate Appellate Court; So vs Court
of Appeals)
These are the instances when the court despite the fact that
supposedly, the execution is a ministerial duty of the court. But in
these cases, the court can refuse to issue an order of execution.
Q: What are the conditions for compulsory execution?
A: The following are the conditions:
a. The judgment must be one that fully disposes the action
or proceeding; and
b. The period to appeal has expired and no appeal has
been taken from the judgment.
Thus, execution will not issue pursuant to an interlocutory judgment or
order. Also, the prevailing party must wait for the period to appeal to
expire before he can more for execution. The timely filing of an appeal,
or a motion for new trial or reconsideration for that matter, effectively
prevents a judgment from becoming final and executory.
NECESSITY OF A MOTION
Execution shall issue ON MOTION as clearly set forth under Section 1
of Rule 39. There is therefore, a need to file for a motion for the
issuance of a writ of execution.
In Lou vs Siapno, it was ruled that even in judgments which are
immediately executory, “there must be a motion to that effect and a
hearing called for the purpose.” Also, “under Supreme Court Circular
No. 24-94, a motion for the issuance of the writ of execution must
contain a notice to the adverse party” (Pallada vs RTC of Kalibo)
A motion for the issuance of a writ of execution shall contain a notice to
the adverse party. A motion which does not contain a notice of hearing
of the time and place for the hearing of the motion as required by Secs
4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, is a worthless paper which
the clerk has no right to receive and which the court has no authority to
act upon (Pallada vs RTC of Kalibo)
WHERE TO FILE MOTION
Execution shall be applied for in the court of origin. If an appeal has
been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may be applied
for in the court of origin on motion of the judgment obligee (Section 1,
Rule 39, Rules of Court)
In filing a motion for execution of an appealed decision, there is no
need to wait for the records of the case to be remanded to the court of
origin. All that is required is for the appeal to have been duly perfected
and finally resolved before execution may be applied for (Berrgonia vs
Decano)
This is because when the judgment obligee files a motion for execution
in the court of origin, all he has to do is to attach the certified true
copies of (a) the judgment of the appellate court, and (b) the entry of
the said judgment (Section 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court) even if the
records have not as yet been remanded to the court of origin. This
procedure prevents needless delays in the execution of the judgment.
If for whatever reason, execution cannot be had with dispatch in the
court of origin, the new rules likewise afford he judgment obligee as
remedy. He may file a motion with the appellate court to direct the
court of origin, in the interest of justice, to issue the writ of execution
(Section 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court).
Q: Is an order of execution appealable?
A: while it may be argued that an order if execution is in essence a final
order, the order may not be appealed from by express provisions of the
Rules. A party desiring to assail an order of execution may instead file
an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
(Section 1, Rule 41, Rules of Court)
A & C Minimart Corporation vs Patricial Villareal, et al.
(G.R. No. 172268, October 10, 2007)
Petitioner avers that the respondents should have filed with the
Court of Appeals an ordinary appeal instead of a special civil action
for certiorari, when it questioned the computation made by the
Parañaque RTC, Branch 194, of the rentals due the owner of the
subject property.
Such contention runs counter to Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court, which provides:
Section 1. Subject of appeal. - An appeal may be taken from a
judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a
particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be
appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:

xxx
(f) an order of execution;
xxx
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not
appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil
action under Rule 65.
It is explicit from the afore-quoted provision that no appeal may be
taken from an order of execution; instead, such order may be
challenged by the aggrieved party via a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Q: What are the grounds that the defeated party may raise in
order to oppose an erroneous execution?
Process: the court issues a decision. Since there is no motion for
reconsideration, no motion for new trial, no appeal, the judgment
became final and executory. If there is an appeal, resolved finally, the
judgment becomes final and executory. The prevailing party now files a
motion for issuance of a writ of execution. Ikaw na defeated party, for
example naa kay ground nganong dili dapat i-issue ang writ of
execution. What are those grounds that you can use? We discussed
before unsa tong mga reasons why the court can refuse the issuance
of a writ of execution. Some of these grounds are also available to be
used in your opposition to the motion for the issuance of writ of
execution. So here, you are seeking the denial of the writ of execution
by filing your opposition to the motion for the issuance of writ of
execution.
Now, the court granted the motion. The court now ordered the
issuance of a writ of execution. As the losing party, because naa gyud
kay ground nganong dili dapat i-issue ni court ang writ of execution.
What do you do? You can now file a motion TO QUASH THE WRIT
OF EXECUTION. So lahi ni siya tong sa opposition. Because katong
opposition, imo to siyang i-file before gi-grant sa court and writ of
execution. Now (katong sa may opposition), you want the court to deny
the issuance of a writ of execution. Karon (na-issue na ang writ of
execution) you want the court to quash the writ of execution. What are
these grounds? Again, katong grounds nimo for opposition magamit
gihapon to nimo as grounds for a motion to quash the writ of execution.
1. The writ of execution varies the judgment;
2. There has been a change in the situation of the parties
making the execution inequitable or unjust;
3. Execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt
from execution;
4. It appears that the controversy has never been submitted to
the judgment of the court;
5. The terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there
remains room for interpretation thereof; or
6. It appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently
issued, or that is defective in substance, or is issued against
the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or
otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority.
SUPERVENING FACT DOCTRINE
- The most famous ground to oppose or to quash the writ of
execution
Under this doctrine, after the judgment became final and
executory, there had been a change in the situations of the
parties which make the execution inequitable and unjust. So
because of these situations, it would be fair and just for the court
to stay or to set aside the execution of the decision.
Example: A filed a case to eject B from his property, Judgment
was rendered ordering B to vacate the property of A. But while the
case was going on, A mortgaged his property to the bank. In the
meantime, he failed to pay his loan and the bank foreclosed the
mortgage. So the property was sold at public auction. And at the
auction sale, B, the one occupying it, bought the property. The
owner now is B. But there is a final judgment ejecting him. Now,
shall we insist in the judgment ejecting B? NO, because B is now
the owner. The fact that B became the owner is a supervening
event.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE
PHIL. VETERANS BANK (PVB) vs. IAC (178 SCRA 645)
The placement of the bank under receivership is a SUPERVENING
EVENT.
Once a decision has become final and executory, it is the ministerial
duty of the court to order its execution, admits certain exceptions. The
fact that petitioner is places under receivership is a supervening event
that renders a judgment notwithstanding its finality unenforceable b
attachment or execution.”
NOTE: When a bank is under receivership, all its assets has to be
preserved. No assets will be sold or disposed of.
SAMPAGUITA GARMENTS CORP. vs. NLRC
(233 SCRA 260)
FACTS:
An employee was terminated by his employer on the ground of
theft. He stole company property. The management filed also a
case of theft against the employee. But in the meantime the
employee also filed a labor case against the employer for illegal
dismissal and prayed for reinstatement with back wages. After
hearing, the NLRC ruled that there was illegal termination and
ordered the reinstatement of the employee and payment of
backwages. The NLRC decision became final. In the meantime, the
accused was convicted in the criminal case for theft.
ISSUE: Whether or not the order of reinstatement should still be
executed
RULING: An employee’s conviction for theft, which was affirmed by
the RTC and the CA, is a SUPERVENING CAUSE that renders
unjust and inequitable the NLRC decision mandating the
employee’s reinstatement with backwages.
Take note however that for the doctrine to apply, the supervening
event must happen after the judgment has become final and executory
and not while the case is still being heard. If the case is still being
heard and an event supervene which would make a prospectively
adverse judgment inequitable, it is the duty of the party who stands to
be prejudiced to bring it to the attention of the court so that the court
deciding the case would take that into consideration. Thus, in the case
of:
VALENZONA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 106895, September 10, 1993, 226 SCRA 36
While the rule is that a stay of execution of a final judgment may be
authorized if necessary to accomplish the ends of justice, as for
instance, where there has been a change in the situation of the
parties which makes such execution inequitable, nevertheless the
said rule cannot be invoked when the supposed change in the
circumstances of the parties took place while the case was pending,
for the reason that there was then no excuse for not bringing to the
attention of the court the fact or circumstance that affects the
outcome of the case.
DISCUSSION: Regarding this supervening event doctrine, please
remember for this doctrine to apply, the supervening event must
happen after the judgment has become final and executory and not
while the case is being heard.
Why? Because if the case is still being heard and these events
transpired, you could bring these occurrence or events to the court so
that the court would take these events in consideration in rendering
judgment or decision.
NOVATION BY SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT
 Can the parties enter into a compromise agreement when
there is already a decision? YES. Compromise agreement is always
encouraged – before the case is filed, while the case is going on and
even while the case is on appeal.
Thus, in case a judgment is rendered but before it is
executed, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the case
amicably, the compromise forged between them effectively superseded
and novates the judgment.
The principle to remember with respect to novation is that
there must be an incompatibility between the first obligation and the
second. Novation can either be modificatory or extinctive.
SECOND AND LAST PARAGRAPHS
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 oblige, submitting therewith certified true copies
of he 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. (n)
The second paragraph covers a situation where the judgment was
appealed so it did not become final and executory at first instance in
the court of origin. However, the appeal was already resolved with
finality in favor of the judgment oblige or prevailing party. The
prevailing party needs only to file a motion, with notice, in the court of
origin and to present certified true copies of the judgment by the
appellate court. The judgment oblige need not wait for the records of
the case on appeal to be transmitted back to the court of origin.
Another way is under the last paragraph which allows the prevailing
party to file a motion for the appellate court to direct the court of origin
to issue the writ of execution. Take note that when this motion is filed,
the judgment on appeal is already final and executory. The power thus
given to the appellate court to approve such motion is akin to an
exercise of residual jurisdiction.
DUTY OF SHERIFF
Well-settled is the rule that a sheriff’s duty in the execution of the writ is
purely ministerial; he is to execute the order of the court strictly to the
letter. He has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not.
When a writ is placed in the hands of the sheriff, it is his duty, in the
absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable
celerity and promptness to implement it in accordance with its
mandate. It is only by doing so that he could ensure that the order is
executed without undue delay. It cannot be overemphasized that
sheriff’s play an important part in the administration of justice, because
they are tasked to execute the final judgments of courts. If not
enforced, such decisions are empty victories on the part of the
prevailing parties. Indeed, the execution of a final judgment is “the fruit
and end of the suit and is the life of the law” (CEBU INTERNATIONAL
FINANCE CORPORATION vs. CABIGON, February 14, 2007).
DISCUSSION: who implements the writ of execution? Is it the judge?
NO it’s not, although the authority comes from the judge. But ang mu
implement and ang mu adto sa field to implement the decision, it is the
sheriff. Of course, parehas sa judge ang implementation sa writ of
execution is also ministerial on the part of the sheriff and he has to
execute the order of the court strictly by letter.
Kung dili na siya buhaton sa sheriff, he could be charged
administratively. Actually the position of the sheriff in the
implementation of decisions, kulba pud na siya. Because kung dili niya
iimplement ang writ of execution, pwede siya balikan sa prevailing
party. Kung iimplement pud niya and mu allege si defeated party na dili
tarong pagka implement not to the letter, pwede pud siya balikan ni
defeated party, so dapat careful jud si sheriff in implementing the writ
of execution, he’s role is also important
DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
Section 2. Discretionary execution. –
(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 wither 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 has lost jurisdiction the motion for execution
pending appeal may be fled in the appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good
reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing.
(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. (2a)
DISCUSSION: here, the judgment sought to be implemented or
executed is not yet final and executory, so it depends upon the court
WON to issue the writ of execution.
HOW, WHERE, AND WHEN TO FILE
HOW:
On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed
in the trial court upon “good reason.”
DISCUSSION:
Q: How do we file the motion?
A: we have to follow the rule on motions. It has to be in writing, copy
furnished the adverse party with notice also to the adverse party. You
have to cite your good reason, why do you want the judgment to be
implemented
WHERE AND WHEN:
AT THE TRIAL COURT
- Within 15 days, 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.
AT THE APPELLATE COURT
- After the trial court has lost jurisdiction the motion for
execution pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court.
DISCUSSION: You have an option here, you can file it at the trial court
or the court of origin. You have 15 days or within the period to appeal,
while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the
original record or the record of appeal at the time of the filing of the
motion. In short, at the time when the trial court still has residual
jurisdiction over the case.
Pwede pud sa appellate court after the trial court has lost jurisdiction.
Please remember when the trial court lose its jurisdiction, as well as
when the trial court still has residual jurisdiction.
When? Kung for example na transmit na sa appellate court ang original
record or record of appeal, then didto na nimo I’file sa appellate court.
WHEN DOES THE COURT LOSE JURISDICITON OVER THE CASE?
With regard to execution pending appeal, you can correlate this with
Rule 41 Section 9, to wit:

Rule 41, Section 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. – A
party’s appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him
upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time.
A party’s appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him
with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the
record on appeal filed in due time.
In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the
case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due and the
expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties.
In appeals, by record on appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only
over the subject thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal
filed in due time and the expiration of the appeal of the other
parties.
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the
record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and
preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any
matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit
appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in
accordance with Section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the
appeal. (9a)
REQUISITES OF DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
The following are the requisites for discretionary execution:
1. There must be a motion filed by the prevailing party with
notice to the adverse party;
2. There must be a hearing of the motion for discretionary
execution;
DISCUSSION: because, it is expressly provided for in Rule 39 and if
you remember Rule 15 Section 5, it is one of those motions considered
as litigious.
3. There must be good reasons to justify the discretionary
execution; and
4. The good reasons must be stated in a special order
(GEOLISTICS INC. vs. CATEWAY ELECTRONICS, G.R.
No. 174256-57, March 25, 2009).
The court may or may not grant the execution depending on whether
there is a good reason or no good reason.
Unlike in Section 1, when the judgment has become final and
executory, you do not have to cite any good reason. The only reason
for the execution is that the judgment becomes final executory.
But in the case of execution pending appeal, you must justify it – the
party must convince the court to grant the execution. According to the
SC, execution under Section 2 is the exception rather than the general
rule.
DISCUSSION: take note also, unlike an execution as a matter of right,
when you say discretionary execution you need good reason. If as a
matter of right, you don’t need good reason, it is ministerial, mandatory
that the court must allow unless the court has a ground to deny the
issuance of a writ of execution.
CITY OF BACOLOD vs. ENRIQUEZ
101 Phil. 644
The requirement of good reason is important and must not be
overlooked, because if the judgment is executed and, on appeal,
the same is reversed, although there are provisions for restitution,
oftentimes damages may arise which cannot be fully compensated.
Accordingly, execution should be granted only when these
considerations are clearly outweighed by superior circumstances
demanding urgency, and the above provision requires a statement
of those circumstances as a security for their existence.
It is even a misnomer – execution pending appeal. For all you
know, the losing party may or may not appeal. It is actually called
execution pending appeal because you are filing the motion within
the period to appeal.
DISCUSSION: The Supreme Court explained why there is a
requirement of a good reason in a discretionary execution.
Q: Why?
A: because there is still an opportunity for the other party to appeal. For
example nag appeal nabaliktad ang decision, so here, although nay
mga requirements for bond there are instances when the party who
has been deprived of his property because of an execution pending
appeal he can no longer be fully compensated.
For example, in labor cases mao na ang usual problem sa employer.
Pag sa NLRC na ang level, although pwede pa ka mag question sa CA
under Rule 65 petition for certiorari, but the judgment of NLRC is final
and executory.
For example lang, executory lng siya but dili siya final, although pwede
pa ma reverse sa CA on certiorari. Ang problema dira, is for example,
money claims sa employees, kung dili mag issue ug TRO or WPI ang
CA, ma execute na ang decision sa NLRC. Like pabayaran na ang
backwages for example sa employee na nakadaog sa NLRC. For
example, millions na siya. Now, what if didto sa CA g’set aside ang
decision sa NLRC? But in the meantime nahatag na nimo ang 10M sa
employee and nagastos na niya tanan pagkahuman sa decision sa CA
and wala na siyay ika bayad sa imoha. So, unsaon man na nimo pag
bawi?
That’s an example na even if the rules says na, kung mabaliktad ang
decision, there will be restitution, but pud na theory lang na siya and
dili mahitabo in reality. That’s why again, in execution pending appeal
there should be good reason.
Execution should be granted only when these considerations are
clearly outweighed by superior circumstances demanding urgency.
There must be justifiable reason why you have to execute pending
appeal. The Supreme Court also mentioned na misnomer na ang word
na “execution pending appeal” because possible man pud na walay
appeal jud mahitabo kay dili na jud siya mag appeal in the end, but ang
meaning lang ana is you file and execution within the period to appeal,
that is why it is calles “execution pending appeal.”
INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES
RE: DISCRETIONARY EXECUTION
Discretionary execution is to be strictly construed because it is an
exception to the general rule. It is not meant to be availed of routinely
because it applies only in extraordinary circumstances (Corona
International, Inc., 343 SCRA 512). It should be interpreted only insofar
as the language thereof fairly warrants, and all doubts should be
resolved in favor of the general rule (PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC.
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 106052, October 22, 1999).
Where the execution is not in conformity with the rules, the execution is
null and void (BANGKOK BANK PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED vs.
LEE, G.R. No. 159806, January 20, 2006).
GOOD REASONS
The existence of good reasons as justification for discretionary
execution is essential. The good reasons are what confer discretionary
power upon the court to issue a writ of execution pending appeal
(INTRAMUROS TENNIS CLUB, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, 341
SCRA 90). Certiorari will lie against an order granting execution
pending appeal where the same is not founded upon good reasons
(International School, Inc. Manila vs. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA
474).
Sec. 2 of Rule 39 does not cite examples of the good reasons that
would justify a discretionary execution. What constitutes a good reason
therefore, is left to the sound exercise of judicial discretion. The
following, among other, have been given by jurisprudence as god
reasons:
DISCUSSION: Unsa man jud ng good reasons to justify discretionary
execution? If you notice it is not defined in Section of Rule 39. So what
constitutes a good reason is left in the sound exercise of judicial
discretion. What are our guides? Check the subsequent cases.