Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 100239 October 28, 1991
BONIFACIO S. MACEDA, R. !"# TERESITA MACEDA, petitioner,
vs.
MOREMAN BUI$DERS CO., INC., !"# %ON. BENAMIN A.G. &EGA, !' Pre'(#(") *#)e o+
RTC o+ M!"(,!, Br!"c- 39, respondents.
Eddie U. Tamondong and Nestor C. Lumba for petitioners.
Rizalindo V. Diaz for private respondent.

DA&IDE, R., J.:p
The principal issue presented in this case is hether or not respondent !ud"e co##itted "rave
abuse of discretion in sta$in" his prior order "rantin" a #otion for the e%ecution of the decision
until after he shall have appreciated the report of a co##ittee he created to deter#ine the
location of the properties levied on attach#ent and their values, both current and as of the ti#e
of the lev$.
The procedural antecedents hich "ave rise to this petition are not disputed.
Petitioners ere the plaintiffs in a civil case 1 for rescission of contract and da#a"es ith attach#ent and preli#inar$
in!unction assi"ned to &ranch '( of the then )ourt of *irst Instance +no Re"ional Trial )ourt, of Manila. Private respondent as
a#on" the defendants therein. -pon proper application b$ petitioners, a rit of preli#inar$ attach#ent as issued b$ the court and
pursuant thereto, the Sheriff levied certain properties hich ere dul$ inventoried.
On ./ Nove#ber 0(1/, the trial court rendered its decision in said )ivil )ase No. 00'2(/ in favor
of petitioners, hich, a#on" other thin"s, declared the buildin" contract rescinded and aarded
to the latter actual, #oral and li3uidated da#a"es in the a""re"ate su# of P224,555.556 the su#
of P.5,555.55 representin" the increase in the construction #aterials6 and P'4,555.55 as
attorne$7s fees.
Defendants appealed said decision to the )ourt of 8ppeals, hich, hoever, dis#issed the sa#e
on 1 March 0(/(. The petition to revie the dis#issal subse3uentl$ filed ith this )ourt 2 as denied
due course for utter lac9 of #erit. In :.R. No. //'05, this )ourt, throu"h the Third Division, #ade the folloin" pertinent findin"s and
conclusions;
Petitioners appealed fro# the decision. The trial court ordered the co#pletion and
trans#ittal of the record on appeal to the )ourt of 8ppeals on 0( March 0(1(. It
appears that the records of the case ere not trans#itted to the appellate court.
Three +', $ears later, on < =anuar$ 0(/0, private respondents #oved to dis#iss
the appeal in the )ourt of 8ppeals. The Motion as denied b$ the appellate court
hich at the sa#e ti#e ordered the )ler9 of the trial court to forard the
co#plete records of the case to the )ourt of 8ppeals ithin thirt$ +'5, da$s and
directed petitioners +appellants, to see to it that the cler9 of court co#plied ith
the order.
Seven +1, $ears later, on 02 8u"ust 0(//, private respondents #oved to stri9e
out the reconstituted records and as9ed the trial court to dis#iss the appeal. The
trial court held that it could no lon"er co#plete reconstitution of the records for
purposes of the appeal considerin" that petitioners>appellants had refused or
failed to appear in the reconstitution proceedin"s.
On 1 March 0(/(, upon #otion of private respondents, the )ourt of 8ppeals
dis#issed the appeal findin" that petitioner More#an had beco#e a phanto#
and fu"itive paper corporation, hich had failed to sub#it its annual reports to the
Securities and ?%chan"e )o##ission +S?), since 0(11 and hose address of
record as found b$ the Sheriff of the trial court to have been abandoned.
Petitioner More#an7s #otion for reconsideration as denied.
Deliberatin" on the instant Petition for Revie, the )ourt considers that
petitioners have failed to sho an$ reversible error on the part of the )ourt of
8ppeals in dis#issin" their appeal. The )ourt of 8ppeals found that More#an7s
appeal as dilator$ and frivolous, havin" prevented the trial court7s decision fro#
beco#in" final for #ore than ten +05, $ears since its rendition, b$ failin" to act on
the co#petition of the record on appeal. Petitioners 3uestion these factual
findin"s of the )ourt of 8ppeals, hich findin"s are, as is ell>9non, bindin"
upon this )ourt, absent an$ co#pellin" reason for overturnin" such findin"s of
fact. Petitioners have not shon an$ such co#pellin" reason. On the contrar$,
the record bears out the conclusions of the )ourt of 8ppeals.@
This resolution as declared i##ediatel$ e%ecutor$.
8 #otion to reconsider the above order as denied in the Resolution of this )ourt of .< March
0((5. The denial as declared final.
Thereafter, herein petitioners filed a #otion to e%ecute the decision of ./ Nove#ber 0(1/. 8s
clai#ed b$ petitioners, hoever, private respondent filed several #otions and pleadin"s @the
co##on thread of hich is that the !ud"#ent purportedl$ had been full$ satisfied or even over
satisfied. . . . @ 3
?ventuall$, on .< October 0((5, respondent !ud"e issued an Order "rantin" the issuance of a
rit of e%ecution. The respondents filed a #otion for reconsideration alle"in" therein, as
su##ariAed in the Order of respondent !ud"e of .' Ma$ 0((0, that;
. . . the rit of e%ecution is no lon"er necessar$ because the !ud"#ent is #ore
than satisfied b$ the attached properties at the inception of the case at bar6 that
hen the instant suit as filed, plaintiffs pra$ed for, and the sa#e as "ranted,
the issuance of a rit of preli#inar$ attach#ent6 that there as in fact lev$ on
attach#ent #ade b$ the sheriff, the inventor$ of hich a#ount +sic, to a total of
P0,54<,/2..506 . . .
Over the opposition of petitioners ho asserted that there as no satisfaction of the !ud"#ent as
there has been no e%ecution, the respondent !ud"e in his aforesaid Order of .' Ma$ 0((0, after
#a9in" the folloin" dis3uisition;
The purpose of preli#inar$ attach#ent need not be sufficed +sic, herein. It
suffices that the sa#e is nor#all$ availed of b$ the plaintiffs in order to be
assured of the satisfaction of !ud"#ent, if the$ prevailed after the trial. Hoever,
before !ud"#ent is rendered, the properties sub!ect of the attach#ent are
under custodia legis for hich the part$ ho secured the sa#e is accountable
to"ether ith the attachin" officer.
In the instant case, the record shos that al#ost all the lar"e portions of the
attached properties ere at the pro!ect site hen the rit of attach#ent as
enforced and that the plaintiffs ere in possession of the attached properties
thereafter. The$ cannot therefore protest +sic, innocence as to the hereabouts
thereof even as the$ had denied lac9 of 9noled"e thereof.
%%% %%% %%%
8t the hearin" of the open incidents relative to the enforce#ent of the order of
e%ecution, the parties hile a"reed that the decision of the )ourt should be
enforced, differed on hether the !ud"#ent has alread$ been satisfied
considerin" the attach#ent of the properties of the defendants earlier #ade b$
the )ourt. The deput$ sheriff, 8n"el &or!a ho e%ecuted the rit of attach#ent
has +sic, lon" been dead and the record does not alread$ sho here the
attached properties are no located, even as the$ are considered under custodia
legis. There is a need for this )ourt to deter#ine here the properties are
presentl$ located and the values thereof at the ti#e of the attach#ent and their
present values. 8 co##ittee therefore has to be created b$ the )ourt in order to
deter#ine once and for all ho the rit of e%ecution should be e%ecuted, ithout
unnecessar$ dela$.
ruled;
BH?R?*OR?, the #otion for reconsideration filed b$ the defendants is hereb$
D?NI?D. The order of e%ecution dated October .<, 0((5 hereb$ sta$s +sic, as
the )ourt hereb$ creates a )o##ittee of ' #e#bers, appointin" the )ler9 of
)ourt as the )hair#an thereof, and the to #e#bers shall be appointed b$ the
parties, one fro# the plaintiff and the other fro# the defendants.
The parties are hereb$ directed to sub#it the na#es of their representative +sic,
and after the #e#bers of the )o##ittee shall have 3ualified, the co##ittee shall
proceed to Tacloban )it$ or to an$ place here the attached properties are
presentl$ found. This co##ittee shall deter#ine the specific hereabouts of the
attached properties and to #a9e a valuation thereof at the ti#e the rit of
attach#ent as e%ecuted and the present values. The co##ittee shall sub#it a
report ithin 4 da$s fro# the co#pletion of their field or9 to the )ourt for its
proper appreciation and enforce#ent of the order of e%ecution. The )ler9 of
)ourt is hereb$ directed to issue the rit of e%ecution after the court shall have
appreciated the report of the )o##ittee. .
Bithout first see9in" a reconsideration, petitioners co##enced the instant petition clai#in" that a
#otion for reconsideration ould be an @e%ercise in futilit$@ / and alle"in" therein that respondent !ud"e
co##itted "rave abuse of discretion in issuin" the above order in that he;
i. violated @res judicata@ in the final decision of ./ Nove#ber 0(1/.
ii. obstructed the Third Division7s *inal and ?%ecutor$ Resolutions of .0 *ebruar$
0((5 and .< March 0((5. 0
The$ vi"orousl$ #aintain that the creation, purpose and dut$ of the co##ittee i#pl$ that after its
or9 is done, the respondent court intends to credit the value of the unused construction
#aterials a"ainst the !ud"#ent aards, hich further #eans that the respondent court has
reco"niAed the onership of More#an C contrar$ to the findin"s in the final decision. The$
further clai# that per the Resolution of the Third Division of this )ourt of .0 *ebruar$ 0((5 in
:.R. No. //'05, the decision of ./ Nove#ber 0(1/ is @i##ediatel$ e%ecutor$,@ to hich
respondent !ud"e, ith the a$ thin"s proceeded in his court, did not accord serious fealt$.
Petitioners then pra$ that Be "ive due course to the petition and issue a restrainin" order. The$
further pra$ that after hearin", Be issue a rit of #anda#us directin" respondent !ud"e to
vacate and set aside the order of .' Ma$ 0((0 and in lieu thereof to i##ediatel$ direct the sheriff
to speedil$ enforce the rit of e%ecution.
In the resolution of .< =une 0((0, Be "ranted the pra$er for the issuance of a te#porar$
restrainin" order and directed the respondents to co##ent on the petition.
In their )o##ent filed on 0/ =ul$ 0((0, respondents clai# that in issuin" the 3uestioned order,
the respondent !ud"e #erel$ applied the e%press provision of Section 04 of Rule 41 of the Rules
of )ourt on satisfaction of !ud"#ent out of propert$ attached6 that the attached properties belon"
to More#an, hence it as not onl$ necessar$ but it as also the dut$ of the court to deter#ine
here the attached properties are, as ell as their present value, before #andatin" enforce#ent
of the rit of e%ecution, otherise, there ould be a violation of the constitutional ri"ht a"ainst
deprivation of life, libert$ and propert$ ithout due process of la6 that res judicata ill not appl$
as there as no prior ad!udication on the onership of the properties attached6 and, finall$, the
instant petition for certiorari is fatall$ defective for failure of petitioners to as9 for a
reconsideration of the 3uestioned order.
Petitioners filed their Repl$ to the )o##ent on 0 8u"ust 0((0.
Be "ave due course to the petition and re3uired the parties to sub#it their Me#oranda hich
respondents co#plied ith on . October 0((0. Petitioners, in their Manifestation filed on .'
Septe#ber 0((0, infor#ed the )ourt that the$ are aivin" the sub#ission of their Me#orandu#
and are sub#ittin" the case on the stren"th of their on pleadin"s.
Be rule for the petitioners, but not for the reasons advanced and relied upon.
The decision of ./ Nove#ber 0(1/ in )ivil )ase No. 00'2(/ had lon" beco#e fir#, final and
e%ecutor$. The rule is ell>settled that the prevailin" part$ is entitled, as a #atter of ri"ht, to a rit
of e%ecution and the issuance thereof is the court7s #inisterial dut$ co#pellable b$ #anda#us. 1
?%ecution of a final !ud"#ent cannot be postponed or deferred b$ the trial court. 8 )ourts should never
allo the#selves to be part$ to #aneuvers intended to dela$ the e%ecution of final decisions. The$ #ust @nip in the bud an$ dilator$
#aneuver calculated to defeat or frustrate the ends of !ustice, fair pla$ and pro#pt i#ple#entation of final and e%ecutor$ !ud"#ents.@ 9
In Lim im T!o vs. "o #im o$ et al.$ 10 Be ruled;
Diti"ation #ust end and ter#inate so#eti#e and so#ehere, and it is essential
to an effective ad#inistration of !ustice that once a !ud"#ent has beco#e final,
the innin" part$ be not, throu"h a #ere subterfu"e, deprived of the fruits of the
verdict. )ourts #ust therefore "uard a"ainst an$ sche#e calculated to brin"
about that result. )onstituted as the$ are to put an end to controversies, courts
should fron upon an$ atte#pt to prolon" the#.
In the instant case, respondent !ud"e as trapped b$ private respondent into abortin" the
i#ple#entation of his .< October 0((5 Order for the issuance of a rit of e%ecution, or
preventin" the pro#pt e%ecution thereof, thereb$ #a9in" uncertain the end of the controvers$.
Be find no valid reason or le"al !ustification to sta$ the i#ple#entation of the said Order and to
sub!ect its enforce#ent or non>enforce#ent to the appreciation b$ respondent !ud"e of the report
to be sub#itted b$ a co##ittee he created to deter#ine the hereabouts of the attached
properties and their values, both current and as of the date of their lev$. This is certainl$ an
unprecedented procedure of unusual novelt$ in hich the inevitabilit$ of undue dela$ in the
e%ecution of the decision lo"icall$ inheres. No one 9nos ho lon" the search for the sub!ect
properties ill last. 8nd even after findin" the#, the parties #a$ not a"ree on the valuation of the
properties. The court then ill have to receive the evidence of the parties in support of their
respective valuations. The part$ a""rieved b$ an$ rulin" thereon #a$ appeal therefro#.
Bhat Be find to be #ore unacceptable is the i#plicit postulation of respondent !ud"e that in a
case here a rit of attach#ent is issued and the attachin" creditor prevails in the case,
deter#ination of the value of the attached properties is a condition sine %ua non for the e%ecution
of the decision. To save the da$ for respondent !ud"e, private respondent su""ests that this is in
accord ith Section 04 of Rule 41 of the Rules of )ourt hich provides;
S?). 04. #atisfaction of judgment out of propert& attac!ed' return of officer. C If
!ud"#ent be recovered b$ the attachin" creditor and e%ecution issue thereon, the
sheriff or other proper officer #a$ cause the !ud"#ent to be satisfied out of the
propert$ attached, if it be sufficient for that purpose, in the folloin" #anner;
+a, &$ pa$in" to the !ud"#ent creditor the proceeds of all sales of perishable or
other propert$ sold in pursuance of the order of the !ud"e, or so #uch as shall be
necessar$ to satisf$ the !ud"#ent6
+b, If an$ balance re#ain due, b$ sellin" so #uch of the propert$, real or
personal, as #a$ be necessar$ to satisf$ the balance, if enou"h for that purpose
re#ain in the officer7s hands, or in those of the cler9 of the court6
+c, &$ collectin" fro# all persons havin" in their possession credits belon"in" to
the !ud"#ent debtor, or oin" debts to the latter at the ti#e of the attach#ent of
such credits or debts, the a#ount of such credits and debts as deter#ined b$ the
court in the action, and stated in the !ud"#ent, and pa$in" the proceeds of such
collection over to the !ud"#ent creditor.
The officer shall forthith #a9e return in ritin" to the court of his proceedin"s
under this Section.
Reliance on the fore"oin" section is #isplaced. *irstl$, it sets the "uidelines for the sheriff C not
the court. In the instant case, no rit of e%ecution had been referred to a sheriff6 in fact, none had
$et been issued. The court7s intervention #a$, if at all, eventuate onl$ if the sheriff should refuse
to follo the outlined procedure. It as unarrantedl$ pre#ature for respondent court to step into
the picture before an$ breach of the procedure as co##itted. It should, hoever, be noted that
the procedure is not mandator&. It provides that @the sheriff or other proper officer ma& cause the
!ud"#ent to be satisfied out of the propert$ attached, if it be sufficient for the purpose.@ The use
of the ord ma& clearl$ #a9es the procedure director&, in hich case the sheriff #a$ disre"ard
the properties attached and proceed a"ainst other properties of the !ud"#ent debtor, if
necessar$. Secondl$, the procedure is sub!ect to the condition e%plicitl$ laid don in +b, of the
aforesaid provision, to it; @if enou"h for the purpose remain in t!e officer(s !ands$ or in t!ose of
t!e cler) of t!e court.@ In the instant case, hile the attached properties are in custodia legis, the
fact re#ains that the$ are not in the possession of the officer concerned or of the cler9 of court. It
as precisel$ to deter#ine the hereabouts of the propert$ that a co##ittee as constituted.
Respondent !ud"e then co##itted "rave abuse of discretion in sta$in" the enforce#ent of his .<
October 0((5 Order "rantin" the issuance of the rit of e%ecution and in creatin" a co##ittee to
deter#ine the hereabouts and values of the attached properties. That a #otion to reconsider
as not filed before the institution of the instant petition is not, under the circu#stances obtainin"
in this case, a fatal error as clai#ed b$ private respondents, since the petition raises 3uestions
hich are essentiall$ le"al in nature. 11
IN TH? DI:HT O* TH? *OR?:OIN:, the petition is hereb$ :R8NT?D and the 3uestioned
Order of .' Ma$ 0((0 of respondent =ud"e in )ivil )ase No. 00'2(/ of &ranch '( of the
Re"ional Trial )ourt of Manila, insofar as it sta$s the Order of .< October 0((5 and creates a
co##ittee to deter#ine the hereabouts of the attached properties and its values and to sub#it
a report thereon hich the court shall then appreciate in connection ith the enforce#ent of the
order of e%ecution, is S?T 8SID? and respondent =ud"e is DIR?)T?D to cause the issuance of
the rit of e%ecution hich the Sheriff #ust i#ple#ent ithout further dela$. This decision is
i##ediatel$ e%ecutor$.
)osts a"ainst private respondent.
IT IS SO ORD?R?D.
*ernan$ C.+.$ "utiarrez$ +r.$ ,idin and Romero$ ++.$ concur.