GR 107404; (March, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 107404 March 30, 1994
SHUGO NODA AND CO. LTD. and SHUYA NODA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS HABALUYAS ENTERPRISES, INC. and DR. SALLY B. HABALUYAS, As Administratrix of the Estate of PEDRO J. HABALUYAS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Shugo Noda and Co. Ltd. and Shuya Noda filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages against private respondents. The parties entered into a written compromise agreement, which was approved by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a partial judgment dated October 30, 1979. In 1981, petitioners filed a motion for execution of judgment, alleging private respondents’ failure to comply. The RTC initially denied the motion in 1984, but later granted a motion for new trial in 1985. This 1985 order was upheld by the Supreme Court en banc. On February 15, 1991, the RTC granted the motion for execution, ordering private respondents to pay the outstanding balance. Private respondents filed a notice of appeal, which the RTC denied in 1992. The Court of Appeals granted private respondents’ petition for certiorari, set aside the RTC orders, and directed the RTC to give due course to the appeal. Petitioners’ petition for review with the Supreme Court was initially denied. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that the Third Division’s resolution substantially modified the settled doctrine that orders of execution of judgment are not appealable, prompting this extended resolution.
ISSUE
May an order of execution of judgment still be the subject of an appeal or a review on certiorari?
RULING
Yes, under specific circumstances. The general rule is that an order granting the issuance of a writ of execution is not appealable to prevent endless litigation. However, an appeal is a proper remedy when the order of execution varies or may not be in consonance with the judgment, when the terms of the judgment are unclear and susceptible to misapplication, or when the question is whether the judgment has been satisfied—all without delving into the merits of the case anew. Furthermore, courts may interchangeably treat an appeal as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, and vice-versa, in the interest of equity. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may also be availed of to test the legal propriety of a writ of execution on grounds of grave abuse of discretion. Given the factual settings of the case, the Court of Appeals correctly directed the RTC to give due course to the appeal. The motion to refer the case en consulta to the Court en banc was denied.