VLASON ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.

COURT OF APPEALS and DURAPROOF

SERVICES, represented by its General Manager, Cesar Urbino Sr., Respondents.

Facts:

The case filed by private respondent, Duraproof Services, with the RTC of Manila involved multiple
defendants. Several defendants entered into a compromise agreement with Duraproof Services. A
compromise agreement is immediately final and executory. As to these defendants therefore, the RTC
decision had become final. Nevertheless, said decision cannot be said to have attained finality as to
petitioner, Vlason Enterprises, which was not a party to the compromise. Moreover, petitioner filed a
Motion for Reconsideration two days before the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal. Execution
shall issue as matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal if no appeal has been duly
perfected.

Ruling that the judgment sought to be reviewed has become final and executory, the CA ordered the
RTC to take appropriate action on the urgent ex parte motion for issuance of a writ of execution filed
by Duraproof Services. Pursuant thereto, the RTC of Manila issued a writ of possession thus placing
Duraproof Services in possession of petitioner's barge Lawin. Hence, this petition.

Issue: WON the private respondent is entitled to a writ of execution.

Ruling:

No. Section 1 of Rule 39 provides that execution shall issue only upon a judgment that finally
disposes of the action or proceeding. Such execution shall issue as a matter of right upon the
expiration of the period to appeal it, if no appeal has been duly perfected.

Omega, Singkong Trading Co. and M/V Star Ace chose to enter into a compromise agreement with
private respondent, Duraproof. As to these defendants, the trial court Decision had become final, and
a writ of execution could be issued against them. Doctrinally, a compromise agreement is
immediately final and executory.

Petitioner, however, is not in the same situation. Said Decision cannot be said to have attained finality
as to the petitioner, which was not a party to the compromise. Moreover, petitioner filed a timely
Motion for Reconsideration with the trial court, thirteen days after it received the Decision or two days
before the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal. A motion for reconsideration tolls the running of
the period to appeal. Thus, as to petitioner, the trial court decision had not attained finality.

We have already shown that the trial court’s Decision has not become final and executory against
petitioner. In fact, the judgment does not even bind it. Obviously, Respondent Court committed
serious reversible errors when it allowed the execution of the said judgment against petitioner.