G.R. No. 161282 ; February 23, 2011
FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION (Now BPI/MS INSURANCE CORPORATION), Petitioner, vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 66, and G.P. SARMIENTO TRUCKING CORPORATION, Respondents.

FACTS

On June 18, 1994, respondent G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corporation (GPS) agreed to transport thirty (30) refrigerator units for Concepcion Industries, Inc. (CII). The cargo was damaged in a collision. Petitioner FGU Insurance Corporation, as CII’s insurer, paid CII ₱204,450.00 for the loss and, as subrogee, filed a complaint for damages against GPS. The RTC dismissed the complaint via demurrer to evidence, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated August 6, 2002, reversed the lower courts regarding GPS’s liability. While agreeing GPS was not a common carrier, the Court held it liable under the doctrine of culpa contractual and ordered GPS to pay FGU ₱204,450.00. This decision became final and executory on October 3, 2002, after the Court denied GPS’s motion for reconsideration.
FGU filed a motion for execution with the RTC. GPS opposed, alleging that after FGU indemnified CII, the insured turned over the damaged refrigerators to FGU, which then sold them to third parties. GPS argued that allowing FGU to recover the full insured value would constitute unjust enrichment or “double recovery.” GPS filed a “Comment with Motion to Set Case for Hearing on the Merits.” The RTC, in its July 1, 2003 Order, granted GPS’s motion and ordered the parties to present evidence on: (1) whether there was an actual turnover of the 30 refrigerators to FGU, and (2) if so, the salvage value of said units. FGU’s motion for reconsideration was denied. FGU then filed this petition for mandamus, arguing the RTC unlawfully neglected its ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution for a final and executory judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion, correctible by mandamus, in granting the respondent’s motion to set the case for hearing and in not issuing a writ of execution despite the finality of the Supreme Court’s judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the RTC did not unlawfully neglect a ministerial duty. While the general rule is that the issuance of a writ of execution for a final and executory judgment is a ministerial act, and the doctrine of immutability of judgments forbids their alteration, there are recognized exceptions. One such exception is “whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.”
The Court found that GPS’s claim of double recovery, if proven, fell squarely within this exception. The allegation that FGU received and sold the damaged refrigerators after being subrogated to CII’s rights presented a supervening event that could render the full execution of the monetary judgment unjust, as it might allow FGU to recover beyond its actual loss. The RTC, therefore, acted within its jurisdiction and did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering a hearing to receive evidence on these factual matters to determine the proper execution of the judgment. The Court emphasized that it is not precluded from rectifying errors of judgment if blind adherence to immutability would sacrifice justice for technicality. The RTC’s orders were upheld.