G.R. No. 91668 October 31, 1990
Mamerto B. Besa, petitioner, vs. Hon. Benjamin C. Tiongson, and Stasa Incorporated, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Stasa Incorporated filed a collection case against petitioner Mamerto B. Besa and others in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila. The action sought reimbursement for payments Stasa made for the electrical consumption of an apartment from May 1978 to August 1985, alleging Besa was the lessee. The MTC rendered a judgment in favor of Stasa. When Stasa moved for execution, Besa initially opposed, claiming non-receipt of the decision. The court ordered him served in open session, after which the judgment became final and executory.
During the execution stage, Besa filed a manifestation citing a Supreme Court resolution in a separate ejectment case (G.R. No. 82596). In that ejectment case, the Court found that Besa was not the lessee of the apartment but that one Victoria Justiniano was. Besa argued that this finding in the ejectment case rendered the money judgment against him unenforceable, as he could not be liable for the apartment’s electrical consumption. The MTC denied his opposition, ruling the collection case was distinct from the ejectment case, and proceeded with execution.

ISSUE

Whether a final and executory judgment in a collection case can be barred from execution by a final judgment in a separate ejectment case involving a different cause of action but a related factual issue (the identity of the lessee).

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the execution of the collection judgment. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of finality of judgments and the distinct nature of causes of action. The collection case for sum of money and the ejectment case are separate suits based on different causes of action. A judgment in one does not automatically bar the execution of a final judgment in the other, especially when the latter has already attained finality. The Court emphasized that Besa’s liability in the collection case was established by a final judgment, which he failed to appeal after being properly served.
Furthermore, the Court found Besa’s reliance on the ejectment ruling unmeritorious. It noted that Victoria Justiniano was Besa’s common-law wife and co-lessee, a fact he did not deny. Consequently, even under the ejectment case’s findings, Besa, as an occupant, remained liable to reimburse the lessor for advanced utility payments absent a contrary stipulation. The petition was deemed frivolous, as it attempted to use a separate proceeding to invalidate an already final and executory monetary judgment.