G.R. No. 182571; September 2, 2013
Ligaya Esguerra, Lowell Esguerra and Liesell Esguerra, Petitioners, vs. Holcim Philippines, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

This case involves the execution of a final and executory Supreme Court Decision dated December 27, 2002 in G.R. No. 120004. That prior case declared void a portion of a free patent title held by Iluminada de Guzman, respondent Holcim’s predecessor-in-interest, which overlapped with property owned by Jorge Esguerra, petitioners’ predecessor. The 2002 Decision ordered de Guzman to surrender the overlapping area to Esguerra and to turn over to him all royalties received from Holcim for limestone quarried from the disputed land from March 23, 1990. It also ordered Holcim to cease quarrying and to account for the royalties it paid to de Guzman.
For execution, petitioners filed an omnibus motion. The RTC granted it and later issued an alias writ of execution, directly ordering Holcim to pay petitioners the computed value of the extracted limestone, amounting to ₱91,872,576.72. Holcim contested this, arguing the 2002 Decision only ordered it to account for and cease payments to de Guzman, not to pay Esguerra directly. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s orders, ruling that the alias writ improperly expanded the judgment’s definitive terms.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court, in executing the final Decision in G.R. No. 120004, gravely abused its discretion by issuing an alias writ of execution that varied the terms of the judgment by directly ordering Holcim to pay the petitioners.

RULING

No, the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC’s orders and the alias writ of execution. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of a judgment for accounting. The final 2002 Decision ordered two key things: first, for Holcim to account for the royalties it paid to de Guzman from the disputed area, and second, for de Guzman to turn over those same collected royalties to Esguerra. These twin orders are inseparable and create an obligation on Holcim flowing to Esguerra through de Guzman.
Upon de Guzman’s failure to satisfy the judgment, the petitioners, as judgment obligees, properly invoked Rules 39, Sections 36 and 37 of the Rules of Court. This allowed the RTC to examine third persons, like Holcim, who are indebted to the judgment obligor (de Guzman). The accounting established that Holcim owed de Guzman royalties for the extracted limestone. Since this debt was for materials wrongfully taken from Esguerra’s land, the RTC correctly applied Holcim’s debt to de Guzman toward the satisfaction of de Guzman’s own judgment debt to Esguerra. The alias writ did not modify the judgment but was a legitimate enforcement mechanism to prevent Holcim from unjustly retaining the benefits of quarrying Esguerra’s property. Execution must not alter the judgment but can employ lawful means to fully satisfy it.