G.R. No. L-34332. January 27, 1981. WINDOR STEEL MFG. CO., INC. & FRANCISCO VENTURA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. JOSE G. BAUTISTA, Judge, CFI of Manila, Branch III, CITY SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY & THE FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, respondents.
FACTS

A judgment based on a compromise agreement obligated petitioners to pay respondent bank P32,000 in installments. The agreement stipulated that default on any installment would entitle the bank to execution for the entire unpaid balance. Petitioners defaulted. The bank secured a writ of execution for P32,000. Petitioners moved to quash it, but their appeal from the denial was dismissed for failure to file a brief. The bank then moved for an alias writ, alleging in its motion that the principal amount due was P19,994.34 plus interest. Petitioners contested this amount, claiming partial payments. At the hearing, their counsel failed to appear, and the trial court issued a first alias writ for P32,000, with the interest portion left blank.
Petitioners filed a certiorari action with the Court of Appeals, arguing the alias writ was invalid for enforcing the full P32,000 judgment amount instead of the actual, lesser admitted balance. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, reasoning the writ’s enforcement would be adjusted by the sheriff to reflect payments, and to rule otherwise would allow debtors to thwart execution through nominal payments.

ISSUE

May an alias writ of execution be validly enforced when it states the full original judgment amount, which exceeds the debtor’s admitted unpaid obligation?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and invalidated the alias writ. A writ of execution must conform strictly to the judgment it seeks to enforce and cannot vary its terms or go beyond them. Where an execution exceeds the judgment, it is invalid to that extent. Here, the compromise judgment was for P32,000, but the bank’s own motion for the alias writ admitted the outstanding principal was only P19,994.34. Consequently, the alias writ issued for P32,000 was not in harmony with the actual amount due under the judgment as admitted by the judgment creditor itself. The Court rejected the appellate court’s view that the sheriff could simply adjust the amount, holding that such a practice would sanction a writ that, on its face, demands more than what is legally demandable. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the correct unpaid balance and issue a proper alias writ for that amount. The cash bond for injunction was not liable for damages as petitioners were entitled to the injunctive relief.