GR 155838; (January, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155838 ; January 13, 2004
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Union Bank of the Philippines
FACTS
Union Bank filed a collection case against DBP for unpaid rentals. DBP, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against its lessee, Foodmasters Worldwide, Inc. The Court of Appeals, in a 1994 decision affirmed by the Supreme Court, ruled that Foodmasters must pay DBP the sum of P32,441,401.85 for unpaid rentals. The dispositive portion further ordered DBP, “after having been paid by third-party defendant-appellee the sum of P32,441,401.85, to remit 30% thereof” to Union Bank. This decision became final and executory in 2000.
Subsequently, Union Bank moved for execution directly against DBP for the 30% share. DBP also moved for execution, but against Foodmasters. The Regional Trial Court granted both motions, issuing a consolidated order and a writ of execution commanding satisfaction of the CA decision and authorizing levy on DBP’s properties for the full obligation.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly issued a writ of execution against DBP, ordering it to pay Union Bank immediately, despite the conditional language in the final CA decision that DBP’s duty to remit arises only “after having been paid by” Foodmasters.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court nullified the writ of execution against DBP. The ruling is anchored on the principle of finality of judgments and the limited role of execution. A writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the final decision. The CA decision clearly established a condition precedent: DBP’s obligation to pay Union Bank is contingent upon DBP first receiving payment from Foodmasters. The trial court cannot, under the guise of execution, alter this substantive condition by making DBP’s liability direct and immediate.
The trial court’s interpretation, which severed the conditional link, effectively modified the final judgment, which is beyond its authority. Execution is a mere ministerial enforcement of a decree, not an opportunity to reinterpret or amend its terms. The proper course was to issue a writ of execution solely against Foodmasters to satisfy its primary obligation to DBP. Only upon DBP’s receipt from Foodmasters would Union Bank’s right to collect its 30% share become demandable. Therefore, the proceedings stemming from the erroneous writ, including garnishment, were declared void. The case was remanded for the issuance of a correct writ against Foodmasters and for the return of any amounts improperly released from DBP.