G.R. No. 171095 June 22, 2015
MAYOR MARCIAL VARGAS and ENGR. RAYMUNDO DEL ROSARIO, Petitioners, vs. FORTUNATO CAJUCOM, Respondent.

FACTS

On August 15, 2000, Fortunato Cajucom filed a Complaint for mandamus and abatement of nuisance against Mayor Marcial Vargas, Municipal Engineer Raymundo del Rosario, and several private individuals (Rodel Puno, et al.) before the RTC of Cabanatuan City. Cajucom alleged that illegal structures built by Puno, et al. on a road shoulder obstructed access to his lot, frustrating his plan to start a gasoline station business. Despite demands, Puno, et al. refused to remove the structures, and Mayor Vargas and Engr. del Rosario failed to act on his request for assistance. On February 14, 2001, the RTC rendered a Decision granting the petition for mandamus, ordering the public defendants to comply with the law by removing the illegal structures. The decision became final and executory as no appeal was interposed. A Writ of Execution was issued on May 25, 2001. The sheriff reported that as of June 13, 2001, the judgment had not been executed. Puno, et al. filed a petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals, which was denied; their subsequent petition to the Supreme Court was also denied. On April 13, 2005, Cajucom filed a Motion to Compel the public defendants to implement the writ and explain why they should not be cited for contempt. In response, Mayor Vargas and Engr. del Rosario filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution. On September 15, 2005, the RTC issued an Order denying the motion to quash, granting the public defendants a 30-day period to execute the decision, and suspending the resolution on the contempt motion. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether grounds exist to quash the subject writ of execution.

RULING

No, grounds do not exist to quash the writ of execution. The Supreme Court held that once a judgment becomes final and executory, the issuance of a writ of execution is a matter of right and a ministerial duty of the court. The writ must conform substantially to the judgment. The Court found no merit in petitioners’ arguments. The writ did not compel the engineer to exercise the mayor’s powers, as the decision ordered both to perform their respective duties under the law. The duty to abate a nuisance is ministerial, not discretionary, as the structures were illegal per se, being built on a public road shoulder. The claim of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies was unavailing, as the decision had already become final. Respondent had a clear legal right to the writ, as the obstruction was a nuisance. The writ was capable of enforcement, as the duty to remove the structures was specific. The enforcement did not vary the judgment, as the order to issue a writ of mandamus for execution was consistent with the final decision. The RTC Order was affirmed.