G.R. No. L-41875 March 12, 1976
GERMANICO A. CARREON, petitioner, vs. HON. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN, Presiding Judge of Branch III, Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte; and PATERNO F. ADASA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Germanico Carreon was the protestee in an election contest for the mayoralty of Dapitan City. The Court of First Instance (CFI) declared respondent Paterno Adasa the winner. Despite Carreon’s pending appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the CFI, presided by respondent Judge Buissan, granted Adasa’s motion for execution of the appealed judgment, ousting Carreon and installing Adasa. Carreon challenged this via a special civil action for certiorari (CA-G.R. No. SP-01824-R). The CA nullified the CFI’s execution orders, issued a writ of mandatory injunction to reinstate Carreon, and ordered Adasa to pay Carreon P5,000 in attorney’s fees plus costs. This CA judgment became final.
Subsequently, Carreon filed a motion in the respondent CFI for execution to collect the monetary award of P5,117.44 from Adasa. Respondent Judge denied the motion, reasoning that the CA judgment for attorney’s fees was a mere incident of the still-pending main election protest and thus could not be separately executed. Carreon’s motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting this petition for certiorari and mandamus. In the interim, the CA rendered a final decision in the main election protest (CA-G.R. No. SP-02029-R), dismissing Adasa’s protest and upholding Carreon’s victory.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for execution of the final and executory judgment of the Court of Appeals awarding attorney’s fees and costs to the petitioner.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the respondent Judge’s orders and directing the issuance of the writ of execution. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of judgments and the ministerial duty of execution. A fundamental rule is that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution; its issuance is a ministerial duty of the court, compellable by mandamus. The CA judgment in SP-01824-R, which included a specific monetary award for attorney’s fees and costs, had long become final and executory. This judgment was distinct and independent from the subsequent judgment in the main election protest (SP-02029-R). The pendency of an appeal in the main case does not bar the execution of a final judgment in a separate, albeit related, special proceeding. The respondent Judge’s characterization of the award as a “mere incident” was a misapplication of law, as the judgment for damages was a final disposition of that particular civil action for certiorari. Therefore, the denial of the motion for execution, despite the judgment’s finality, constituted a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that execution is the fruit and end of the suit, and the duty to issue it upon finality is mandatory.