GR 136221; (May, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136221 May 12, 2000
Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. vs. Mayfair Theater, Inc.
FACTS
The Supreme Court, in a prior decision (G.R. No. 106036), ordered the rescission of a sale between Equatorial and Carmelo & Bauermann, Inc. (CBI). It directed CBI to return the purchase price to Equatorial, Equatorial to execute documents to return ownership to CBI, and CBI to allow Mayfair Theater to buy the lots for P11,300,000. This decision became final and executory. Mayfair then moved for execution in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC issued an order and writ of execution that contained specific directives not found in the Supreme Court’s dispositive portion, such as imposing a 10-day period for compliance, ordering CBI to execute a deed of transfer to Mayfair, and ordering Equatorial to accept the money from CBI.
Equatorial challenged this RTC order via a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, arguing the writ altered the final judgment. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the petition but later modified its decision, ordering Mayfair to deposit an additional amount (P847,000 for alleged withholding tax) with the Clerk of Court, who would then release the full P11.3 million to Equatorial. Equatorial appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals and the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing execution orders that varied or modified the terms of the final and executory decision of the Supreme Court.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that a writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the final judgment. The duty of the executing court is purely ministerial; it cannot modify, expand, or subtract from the terms of the final decree. The RTC’s order, by adding specific timeframes, detailing TCT numbers, and dictating the sequence and manner of payment and transfer not expressly stated in the Supreme Court’s decision, constituted an unauthorized alteration of a final judgment. Such an act is null and void for want of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in upholding and further modifying the RTC’s flawed order. The Supreme Court set aside the assailed Court of Appeals resolution and the inconsistent RTC orders. The trial court was directed to execute the judgment strictly according to the terms of the Supreme Court’s final decision in G.R. No. 106036. The Court also clarified that any duty to withhold tax was imposed on the seller, CBI, not on Mayfair, thus disallowing the deduction ordered by the Court of Appeals.