G.R. No. 120760 February 24, 1998
PACITA VIRAY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOHNSON CHUA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pacita Viray entered into a compromise agreement with spouses Hilarion and Gliceria Pinlac, approved by the trial court, wherein the spouses agreed to pay their indebtedness of P160,000.00 in installments, with a provision that failure to pay two installments would make the outstanding balance due and payable. The Pinlac spouses later sold a parcel of land, which they had redeemed from foreclosure by the SSS, to private respondent Johnson Chua. Due to the spouses’ failure to pay two installments, Viray filed a motion for a writ of execution, alleging an unpaid balance of P57,500.00. The trial court granted the motion, and the Clerk of Court issued a writ for P57,500.00. The Deputy Sheriff annotated a notice of levy on the title of the land, still in the Pinlacs’ name but already sold to Chua. Viray then wrote to the Clerk of Court, stating that the amount in her motion was erroneous and the correct balance was P157,500.00. Without a prior court order, the Clerk of Court issued an amended writ increasing the amount to P157,500.00. On the same day, Chua registered the deeds of redemption and sale, and a new title was issued in his name containing an entry for the notice of levy (without specifying the amount). Upon verifying the Sheriff’s notice showing P57,500.00, Chua tendered this amount, but it was rejected as insufficient due to the amended writ. A notice of sale based on the amended writ was published, and an auction proceeded with Viray as the highest bidder, despite Chua filing a complaint for injunction. Chua later consigned P57,500.00 with the court. The trial court declared the amended writ, notice of sale, and certificate of sale null and void, ordered the cancellation of the levy and sale registrations, directed the release of the consigned amount to Viray, and dismissed her counterclaim, ruling the Clerk of Court had no authority to amend the writ without a court order. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Clerk of Court had the authority to amend ex mere motu a writ of execution to change the amount to be satisfied.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court distinguished between the judicial act of awarding an execution and the ministerial act of issuing a writ. The order of the trial court granting the motion for execution for P57,500.00 was the judicial foundation for the writ. The Clerk of Court’s function in issuing the writ is ministerial and must strictly conform to the court’s order. Before amending the writ, the court’s order granting its issuance must first be amended. Only the judge, not the Clerk of Court, has the authority to amend such an order. The Clerk of Court, by amending the writ on her own, usurped a judicial function. The Court also found that respondent Chua was not a buyer in bad faith and had the right to rely on the amount stated in the notice of levy (P57,500.00). He was not required to explore beyond the record. However, the Court noted that petitioner Viray is not precluded from taking appropriate steps to enforce her rights under the compromise judgment against the Pinlac spouses.