G.R. No. 171626 , August 6, 2014
Olongapo City, Petitioner, vs. Subic Water and Sewerage Co., Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

On October 24, 1990, petitioner Olongapo City filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against Olongapo City Water District (OCWD) for failure to pay electricity bills and remit payments under a contract related to the acquisition of the city’s water system. The parties entered into a Compromise Agreement on June 4, 1997, which was approved by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo in a decision dated June 13, 1997. The agreement stipulated that OCWD would pay petitioner a net obligation of ₱135,909,467.09, amortized over 25 years. The agreement also contained a provision requesting that respondent Subic Water and Sewerage Co., Inc., which had taken over OCWD’s operations pursuant to a Joint Venture Agreement, be made a co-maker for OCWD’s obligations. Subic Water’s then-chairman, Mr. Noli Aldip, signed the agreement on its behalf. OCWD was judicially dissolved on December 15, 1998. Petitioner filed a motion for issuance of a writ of execution on May 7, 1999, which the RTC granted in an order dated July 23, 1999, but no writ was issued. Almost four years later, on May 30, 2003, petitioner filed another motion for execution. The RTC granted this motion and directed issuance of a writ of execution against OCWD and/or Subic Water in an order dated July 29, 2003, and issued the writ on July 31, 2003. Subic Water filed motions to reconsider and quash the writ, which the RTC denied in an order dated October 7, 2003. Subic Water filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, annulling the RTC’s orders and writ of execution, ruling that the motion for execution filed in 2003 was filed beyond the five-year period from the finality of the judgment (June 13, 1997), making the RTC’s order granting it null and void for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the writ of execution for having been issued beyond the five-year period for execution by motion under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
3. Whether Subic Water, as a non-party and alleged co-maker/successor-in-interest, could be subject to the writ of execution.

RULING

1. The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an improper remedy. The assailed CA decision and resolution were final orders that completely disposed of the case. The proper remedy was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal.
2. No, the Court of Appeals did not err. Under Section 6, Rule 39, a final and executory judgment may be executed by motion within five years from its entry. The judgment based on the compromise agreement became final and executory on June 13, 1997, the date of the RTC decision approving it. The period for filing a motion for execution expired on June 13, 2002. While petitioner filed a motion on May 7, 1999 (within the period), and it was granted, no writ was issued. Petitioner’s subsequent motion filed on May 30, 2003, was beyond the five-year period. Execution could then only be pursued by filing an independent action for revival of judgment. The RTC’s order granting the 2003 motion was issued without jurisdiction and was null and void. The delay in issuance of the writ was not attributable to the judgment debtor; petitioner failed to follow up on the issuance of the writ after the 1999 order.
3. The Court did not reach the substantive issue of Subic Water’s liability due to the dispositive procedural and jurisdictional ruling. However, it noted that Subic Water was not a formal party to the case, and its liability, if any, as a co-maker or successor-in-interest would require a proper determination in an appropriate proceeding, not through mere inclusion in a writ of execution against a different entity.
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for being the wrong remedy and for lack of merit.