G.R. No. 126592 ; October 2, 2001
Romeo G. David, petitioner, vs. Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco, Sheriff Ernesto L. Sula, and Continental Watchman Security Agency, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Romeo G. David, former administrator of the National Food Authority (NFA), seeks the annulment of an Order and Writ of Execution issued by respondent Judge. Private respondent Continental Watchman Security Agency had a security service contract with NFA. When petitioner initiated a review and new bidding for security contracts, private respondent’s contract was not extended beyond August 16, 1993. Private respondent filed a complaint for damages and injunction. The Court of Appeals and subsequently the Supreme Court ruled that while the expired contract could not be revived via injunction, NFA was enjoined from awarding new contracts without public bidding. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Upon remand, private respondent filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution to claim payment for security services allegedly worth over P26 million, despite no trial on the merits having been conducted. The trial court granted the motion and issued the writ. Petitioner contends he was not notified of the hearing on the motion and that an NFA lawyer, who no longer represented him, appeared without his authority. Petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari, arguing the writ was issued without a final judgment, in violation of due process.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing a writ of execution prior to a final judgment on the merits in the case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring the Order and Writ of Execution null and void. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental rule that a writ of execution is a remedy to enforce a final and executory judgment. Under Rule 39, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, execution shall issue only upon a judgment or order that finally disposes of the action. At the time the writ was issued, Civil Case No. Q-93-17139 was still pending; no pre-trial or trial had been conducted, and no decision on the merits had been rendered. The issuance of the writ was therefore premature and patently void.
The Court emphasized that the writ’s issuance deprived petitioner of due process, as it allowed the seizure of property based on a mere claim not yet adjudicated. The fact that the writ may have been satisfied does not validate it; a void writ produces no legal effect. The trial court’s act constituted grave abuse of discretion, as it was done without jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the trial court to proceed with the pre-trial and trial with dispatch. The amount claimed by private respondent is a factual matter requiring proper adjudication in a full-blown trial, not through an execution proceeding.