G.R. No. L-45825 June 30, 1988
NGO BUN TIONG, petitioner, vs. HON. MARCELINO M. SAYO, PRESIDING JUDGE BR. XXXIII, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL and GALAURAN & PILARES CONSTRUCTION CO., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 96351, wherein Caltex (Phil.) Inc. obtained a monetary judgment against Galauran & Pilares Construction Co. (private respondent). After the judgment became final, a writ of execution was issued. At a public auction on January 26, 1977, petitioner Ngo Bun Tiong emerged as the highest bidder for levied properties of the private respondent, and a Certificate of Sale was issued to him. Prior to this sale, the private respondent had unsuccessfully challenged the execution proceedings through motions and a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. A subsequent petition for review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-45443) was also denied.
Despite the finality of the execution proceedings, private respondent filed a new complaint for “Declaration of Nullity of the Auction Sale and Damages” (Civil Case No. C-6131) before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXXIII, presided by respondent Judge Marcelino M. Sayo. The respondent court issued a temporary restraining order and later a writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction, ordering petitioner to return the purchased equipment and restraining him from removing them, upon the posting of a bond.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of Civil Case No. C-6131 and issuing the injunctive orders, despite the finality of the execution sale in the prior case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling and setting aside the orders of the respondent court. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of finality of judgments and the prohibition against forum-shopping or relitigation. The execution sale to petitioner was a consequence of a final and executory judgment. The issuance of a certificate of sale in his favor terminated the execution proceedings, and the title to the properties was deemed vested in him. A court that has issued a writ of execution retains jurisdiction to supervise its execution process, and any incident arising from its enforcement should be resolved in the same case, not in a separate action. By filing a new complaint to nullify the auction sale, private respondent improperly initiated a collateral attack on the consummated execution proceedings of a co-equal court.
Crucially, the allegations in the new complaint were the very same issues that private respondent had already raised and lost in its prior petition before the Court of Appeals, the dismissal of which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The filing of a separate action to re-litigate these settled issues constitutes contumacious defiance of judicial authority and flagrant forum-shopping, which clogs the courts and harasses the prevailing party. The Supreme Court censured this practice, emphasizing that litigation must end, and a final judgment must put a stop to further disputes on the same matter. Consequently, the respondent court acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the new complaint and issuing the injunctive orders.