GR 180325; (February, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180325 ; February 20, 2013
O. VENTANILLA ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ADELINA S. TAN and SHERIFF REYNANTE G. VELASQUEZ, Presiding Judge,* Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner O. Ventanilla Enterprises Corporation filed a complaint for cancellation of a lease contract against respondents Alfredo S. Tan and Adelina S. Tan. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the Tans to surrender the leased properties and pay various sums, including exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and liquidated damages. The RTC granted the petitioner’s motion for execution pending appeal. The Tans subsequently paid the petitioner the total judgment amount of ₱9,073,694.76, which the petitioner acknowledged as “complete and full satisfaction” of the obligations. The RTC then lifted the levies on the Tans’ properties.
Adelina S. Tan pursued her appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA) partially granted it, deleting the awards for exemplary damages and attorney’s fees and reducing the liquidated damages. This CA Decision became final and executory. Adelina Tan then filed a motion for execution in the RTC to compel the petitioner to refund the excess amounts she had paid under the now-modified judgment. The RTC granted the motion and issued an alias writ of execution.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the alias writ of execution to compel the petitioner to refund the excess payment made by Adelina Tan under the final and executory CA Decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the RTC’s order for a refund. The Court emphasized the immutability of final judgments. The CA Decision had become final and executory as neither party appealed it. This finality vested in Adelina Tan a clear right to the return of the amounts corresponding to the awards that were deleted or reduced by the appellate court. The petitioner’s argument that its counsel’s death affected the finality was unavailing, as the negligence of counsel binds the client.
The legal basis for the refund is found in Section 5, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which expressly authorizes the trial court, upon motion, to issue orders of restitution when an executed judgment is subsequently reversed or modified. The payment made by Adelina Tan was pursuant to the execution pending appeal of the RTC judgment. The subsequent final CA Decision, which modified that judgment by decreasing the monetary awards, created an obligation on the part of the petitioner, who had received the payment, to return the excess. The RTC’s issuance of the alias writ of execution was therefore a proper and ministerial enforcement of the final CA judgment, in accordance with equity and the rules. There was no grave abuse of discretion.