GR 129660; (November, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129660 ; November 22, 2001
BIENVENIDO P. JABAN and LYDIA B. JABAN, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GERMAN LEE, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 15, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), SSS ADMINISTRATOR RENATO VALENCIA and SSS REGIONAL MANAGER EDMOND GONZALES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners obtained a housing loan from respondent SSS in 1979. After making advance payments, they claimed full settlement in 1987 and demanded the release of their mortgage. SSS refused, asserting an outstanding balance. Petitioners filed an action for release of mortgage. The RTC dismissed their complaint and ordered them to pay the balance of their obligation. The Court of Appeals affirmed but deleted the award of attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court denied petitioners’ subsequent appeal, making the judgment final.
Petitioners then moved for execution, arguing they only needed to pay the specific sum stated in the dispositive portion. The RTC, to determine the exact payable amount, issued orders requiring SSS to manifest the computation per its rules, which included charges for mortgage redemption insurance and fire insurance. Petitioners challenged these orders via certiorari in the CA, alleging they unlawfully amended the final judgment. The CA dismissed the petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing orders that allegedly amended or modified the dispositive portion of a final and executory judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The trial court’s orders did not amend the final judgment but merely clarified it for proper execution. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision, as modified by the CA, ordered petitioners to pay the balance “in accordance with the Promissory Note.” A prior resolution of the Court of Appeals in the same case had explicitly stated that the computation of the exact amount payable was governed by SSS rules and regulations, which encompassed not just principal and interest but also ancillary charges like mortgage redemption insurance.
The trial court’s hearing and subsequent orders were necessary to give life to the judgment by determining the precise sum due under these governing rules. This act of computation and clarification, done to implement the decision, is within the court’s authority and does not constitute an alteration of the decree. Since the trial court acted in consonance with the appellate court’s directive and within its jurisdiction, no grave abuse of discretion existed to warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari.