G.R. No. 160109 November 22, 2005
Spouses GERMAN and ELISA BALANOBA and REBECCA DE SAGON MADRIAGA, Petitioners, vs. MANUEL D. MADRIAGA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Manuel Madriaga filed a collection case against petitioners Spouses German and Elisa Balanoba for their failure to convey a parcel of land despite receiving partial payment. The trial court declared the Balanobas in default and rendered a decision in Madriaga’s favor, which became final and executory. To satisfy the money judgment, Madriaga moved for the garnishment of German Balanoba’s wages from his employer. The Balanobas opposed, arguing the judgment debt was part of the community property of spouses Manuel and Rebecca Madriaga, and that Rebecca, through her counsel (who was also counsel for the Balanobas), had condoned her half-share in their favor. The trial court initially denied the motion for garnishment on procedural grounds.
After Madriaga filed motions for reconsideration to rectify the procedural defects, the trial court ultimately issued an order for the issuance of an alias writ of execution. The Balanobas and Rebecca Madriaga challenged this, arguing that a second motion for reconsideration was prohibited and that the judgment could not be executed against German’s salary due to its exemption from execution under Article 1708 of the Civil Code. They also contended Rebecca was an indispensable party whose rights over half the judgment award were not barred by the prior proceedings.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the prohibition against a second motion for reconsideration applies to orders incident to execution; (2) whether a final and executory money judgment can be modified; and (3) whether the claimed exemptions from execution were duly established.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. First, it ruled that the prohibition under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court against a second motion for reconsideration applies only to judgments or final orders that dispose of the merits of the case. It does not apply to interlocutory orders, such as those resolving incidents during execution, like the motion for garnishment. Therefore, the trial court did not err in entertaining the subsequent motions.
Second, the Court affirmed the doctrine of immutability of final judgments. The 1996 decision had long become final; thus, its substantive aspects could no longer be altered. The claim that the judgment credit was conjugal property and that Rebecca Madriaga had condoned her share constituted a collateral attack on the final judgment, which is impermissible. Rebecca was not an indispensable party in the original collection suit, as the cause of action was solely against the Balanobas. Her rights, if any, over the proceeds of the judgment could be pursued in a separate action but could not impede the execution of the final judgment.
Finally, the Court held that exemptions from execution must be clearly proved by the party claiming them. The Balanobas failed to substantiate their claim that the garnished wages were exempt under Article 1708 of the Civil Code. Mere allegation was insufficient; they did not present evidence to show the debt was not incurred for “food, shelter, clothing and medical attendance.” Consequently, the order for alias writ of execution and garnishment was proper.