GR 211969; (October, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 211969 . October 04, 2021
THE LINDEN SUITES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. MERIDIEN FAR EAST PROPERTIES, INC., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Linden Suites Inc. filed a complaint for damages against respondent Meridien Far East Properties, Inc. before the RTC of Pasig City due to an encroachment by respondent’s retaining wall. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering respondent to pay various sums. This decision was affirmed with modification by the CA and subsequently attained finality. A writ of execution was issued, but the sheriff failed to serve it at respondent’s known addresses. Petitioner discovered that respondent’s officers in its 2006 General Information Sheet (GIS) were the same officers and shareholders of another corporation, Meridien East Realty and Development Corporation (MERDC), with identical residential addresses. Petitioner then filed an “Urgent Motion to Examine Judgment Obligor” before the RTC of Pasig City, praying that respondent’s officers be directed to appear for an examination of respondent’s income and properties to satisfy the judgment. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the officers could not be examined as they did not reside within its territorial jurisdiction and such examination would violate the doctrine of separate corporate personality. The CA affirmed the RTC’s order, applying Section 36, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which states a judgment obligor cannot be compelled to appear before a court outside the province or city where he resides or is found. The CA held that since respondent’s principal address was in Makati City, it was outside the RTC Pasig’s territorial jurisdiction.
ISSUE
May the RTC, as the court that rendered judgment on petitioner’s complaint, examine respondent’s officers?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA Decision. The Court held that the RTC, as the court that rendered the judgment, retains supervisory control over the execution of its judgment. This supervisory power includes the authority to compel the appearance of the judgment obligor or its officers for examination regarding its property, regardless of the location of the obligor’s residence or office. The prohibition in Section 36, Rule 39 against compelling a judgment obligor to appear before a court outside the province or city of residence applies to courts other than the one which rendered the judgment. The RTC of Pasig City, being the rendering court, has the inherent power to enforce its own judgment and to require the judgment obligor’s officers to appear before it for examination to aid in execution. The CA therefore erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of the motion. The RTC’s refusal to exercise its supervisory power constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court directed the RTC of Pasig City to examine respondent’s officers in accordance with its Decision.