G.R. No. L-65439 July 31, 1986
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, petitioner, vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, Hon. Filemon Fernandez, Jr., Hon. Albina Manalodans, as Commissioners of Civil Service Commission and Hernani P. Esteban, respondents.

FACTS

The Supreme Court, in a decision dated November 13, 1985, affirmed the Civil Service Commission’s resolutions declaring Hernani Esteban’s appointment as Vice-President for Administration of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila as permanent and ordering his immediate reinstatement with back salaries. The dispositive portion, however, expressly conditioned reinstatement on Esteban not having reached the compulsory retirement age; otherwise, he would only be entitled to back salaries and benefits up to his retirement date. The Court also modified the award of back salaries to not exceed five years.
Subsequently, Esteban filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Immediate Execution before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The writ of execution was returned unsatisfied because the City Legal Officer, representing the Pamantasan, informed the sheriff that Esteban had already reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 on July 20, 1984. The RTC, therefore, denied Esteban’s motion for an alias writ of execution. Esteban then filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, which was procedurally erroneous.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly denied the issuance of an alias writ of execution for Esteban’s reinstatement.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Procedurally, Esteban’s mode of appeal was incorrect under Republic Act No. 5440 , which requires a petition for review on certiorari, not a mere notice of appeal. His failure to follow the proper procedure rendered the RTC orders final. Even treating the appeal as a motion for clarification, it lacked merit.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that execution must conform strictly to the judgment sought to be enforced. A writ of execution cannot vary the terms of the final judgment. The Court’s 1985 decision explicitly made Esteban’s reinstatement conditional upon his not having reached compulsory retirement age. Since it was established that he had already reached age 65, a writ compelling his physical reinstatement would contradict the judgment’s express terms and would thus be null and void. The trial court correctly performed its ministerial duty by refusing to issue an alias writ that would have altered the judgment.
The Court emphasized that while Esteban sought reinstatement to remove the stigma of dismissal, as cited in the Insular Life case, such reinstatement in this instance would be merely symbolic. The Court’s decision had already fully vindicated Esteban’s rights. The trial court was commended for its fidelity to the law and the Supreme Court’s pronouncements.