GR 129442; (March, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129442 March 10, 1999
FEDERICO PALLADA, et al., petitioners, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF KALIBO, AKLAN, BRANCH 1, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents filed an action for recovery of possession and ownership. The RTC initially ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring them the absolute owners. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, declaring private respondents as the lawful owners and ordering petitioners to restore possession and pay the value of the land’s produce from 1976. Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Their subsequent Petition for Review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 126112) was denied in a Resolution dated November 18, 1996, which became final and executory on January 22, 1997.
Thereafter, private respondents filed an Ex Parte Motion for Execution with the RTC, which granted the motion and issued a Writ of Execution on May 2, 1997. Petitioners then filed the instant Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction, assailing the writ. They argued they were not bound by their counsel’s negligence, that the ex parte motion was granted without notice, and that their case was meritorious.
ISSUE
Whether the Writ of Execution issued by the RTC is valid and whether the petition has merit.
RULING
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Writ of Execution and found no merit in petitioners’ arguments. On the first issue, the negligence of counsel binds the client. Petitioners have a correlative duty to keep in touch with their counsel to monitor their case. Their bare allegation of being unaware of their counsel’s departure abroad is insufficient. Furthermore, the Court noted that even absent any negligence, their earlier petition (G.R. No. 126112) would have failed as the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error.
On the second issue, while the Rules require notice of a motion for execution to the adverse party, the Court refused to invalidate the writ. The petition was deemed a dilatory tactic. The Court emphasized that litigations must end, and once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of victory. Rigid application of technicalities may be disregarded to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The third issue regarding the merits of their ownership claim was deemed already resolved with finality in G.R. No. 126112, as a final and executory decision can no longer be disturbed.