GR 234636; (February, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 234636 . February 13, 2023
Ron Zabarte, Petitioner, vs. Gil Miguel T. Puyat, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Ron Zabarte filed a complaint to enforce a foreign money judgment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in his favor in a Decision dated February 21, 1997, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and became final and executory on July 16, 2001. Petitioner moved for execution on September 2, 2002, and the RTC issued a Writ of Execution on September 4, 2002. The writ was only partially satisfied. Over the years, petitioner filed various motions to enforce the judgment, including a motion for examination of the judgment obligor (respondent) and a motion for an alias writ of execution. The RTC, however, eventually issued an Omnibus Order on October 19, 2015, terminating the execution proceedings, ruling that the five-year period to execute the judgment by motion under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court had expired. The CA affirmed the RTC’s orders. Petitioner argues that the five-year period under Section 6, Rule 39 pertains only to the commencement of execution by motion and not to the enforcement of a writ already issued within that period.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC correctly terminated the execution proceedings on the ground that the five-year period for execution by motion under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court had lapsed, despite a writ of execution having been issued within that period.
RULING
No. The Petition is granted. The Supreme Court clarified that the five-year period under Section 6, Rule 39 refers to the period within which a prevailing party may move for the issuance of a writ of execution. Once a writ is validly issued within that five-year period, its enforcement may continue even beyond the five years, until the judgment is fully satisfied, provided the delay is not attributable to the fault or negligence of the judgment creditor. The Court found that the issuance of the Writ of Execution on September 4, 2002, was well within the five-year period from the finality of judgment on July 16, 2001. Therefore, the RTC erred in terminating the execution proceedings based on the expiration of the five-year period. The case was remanded to the RTC for the continuation of the execution proceedings. The Court also addressed a subsidiary issue, ruling that the examination of a judgment obligor under Section 36, Rule 39 may be conducted in the court where the case was filed, not merely within the province of the obligor’s residence.