G.R. No. 112288 February 20, 1997
DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent American Home Assurance Company secured a money judgment against petitioner Delsan Transport Lines in the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner, through counsel Atty. Noel L. Montilla, filed a notice of appeal. Subsequently, petitioner moved to dismiss its own appeal, claiming the judgment had been fully satisfied and attaching a document titled “Satisfaction of Judgment” purportedly signed by both parties’ counsel. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Later, private respondent, through new counsel, moved for execution in the RTC, alleging it never received any payment and that the satisfaction document was spurious. The RTC granted the motion for execution.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, insisting payment was made and invoking the presumption of regularity of the satisfaction document. The appellate court dismissed the petition, finding the document was never filed with the RTC and that private respondent denied its authenticity. The court noted the improbability of petitioner filing a notice of appeal after allegedly satisfying the judgment and the failure to produce any receipt for the substantial payment. It referred the case for possible criminal prosecution for falsification.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC’s order for execution of the final and executory judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. Execution of a final and executory judgment is a matter of right and a ministerial duty of the court. The burden to prove satisfaction of the judgment, which would stay execution, rests on the judgment debtor. Petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The purported “Satisfaction of Judgment” was correctly found unreliable; it was never filed with the trial court, and private respondent credibly denied its execution. Petitioner’s subsequent submission of documents showing a P100,000 payment to the former counsel of private respondent, purportedly for “settlement fees,” did not constitute proof of payment for the judgment debt exceeding P1.1 million. The documents did not name private respondent as payee, and the alleged compromise amount was grossly disproportionate to the judgment award, making the claim implausible. With no credible evidence of payment presented, the trial court correctly performed its ministerial duty to order execution. The Supreme Court also affirmed the referral of the involved attorneys to the Bar Confidant for investigation.