G.R. No. L-58407. May 30, 1983.
FLORENTINA LUNA GONZALES, Assisted By Her Husband TOMAS GONZALES, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE MARCELINO N. SAYO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXIII, Caloocan City; LEONEL BENJAMIN and REBECCA BENJAMIN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of a loan against private respondents. The latter filed an answer with a counterclaim for damages. Petitioners failed to answer the counterclaim, leading the trial court to declare them in default and render judgment on the counterclaim, awarding substantial damages to the respondents. Petitioners filed motions to lift the default and set aside the judgment. Instead of ruling on these motions, the trial judge mediated a compromise agreement. The agreement, approved by the court on August 29, 1980, stipulated that respondents would pay petitioners P9,890.00 within two months or immediately upon obtaining a loan, whichever came first, with both parties waiving all claims and counterclaims. It further provided that a writ of execution would issue upon any violation.
Respondents failed to pay. Petitioners filed a motion for execution, which was heard on March 31, 1981, with no opposition from respondents. The motion was submitted for resolution but remained unacted upon for months despite a follow-up motion. Petitioners then filed this mandamus petition to compel the respondent judge to order execution.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus may issue to compel the respondent judge to act on and grant the motion for execution of a judgment based on a compromise agreement.

RULING

Yes, mandamus is proper. The legal logic is straightforward. A judgment based on a compromise agreement has the force of res judicata and is immediately executory upon breach of its terms. The compromise agreement here explicitly provided for the issuance of a writ of execution upon violation. Respondents’ failure to pay within the stipulated two-month period constituted a clear breach. Petitioners’ motion for execution was therefore a matter of right, and the duty of the court to act upon it was ministerial.
The Court emphasized that while a judge has discretion in granting or denying a motion, the duty to resolve such a motion submitted for decision is mandatory and ministerial. Prolonged inaction on a motion for execution, especially where the right is clear as in this case, constitutes an unlawful neglect of duty remediable by mandamus. The Court cited established jurisprudence that mandamus lies to compel the execution of a final and executory judgment. Here, the judgment based on the compromise was final, the breach was uncontested, and the agreement’s own terms mandated execution. The respondent judge’s failure to act, even considering his subsequent illness and retirement, did not negate the clear legal duty to resolve the pending motion. The petition was granted, and the court was ordered to issue the writ of execution immediately.