G.R. No. 75679 ; January 12, 1990
ROSAURO C. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. HON. AUGUSTO E. VILLARIN, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XL, and INVESTORS’ FINANCE CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a compromise agreement in Civil Case No. 125249, wherein petitioner Rosauro Cruz admitted an outstanding obligation of P7,068.45 to respondent Investors’ Finance Corporation. The agreement, approved by the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Manila on August 1, 1980, required Cruz to pay P909.00 monthly. For alleged non-compliance, the respondent corporation moved for execution, leading to a writ issued on November 20, 1980 for P7,519.80. Cruz then paid P4,545.00 via three post-dated checks on December 11, 1980. Subsequently, the respondent corporation moved for an alias writ of execution for the alleged unpaid balance, which the RTC granted on May 19, 1982, issuing a writ for P4,613.43 and levying Cruz’s properties. Cruz moved to lift the levy, claiming full payment, but the RTC denied it, finding an unpaid balance of P3,174.80. After a separate complaint by Cruz was dismissed, the RTC issued another alias writ on October 29, 1984. Cruz then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals).

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the alias writs of execution issued on May 19, 1982 and October 29, 1984 were legally issued without a prior Sheriff’s Return on the 1980 writ; (2) whether the obligation was fully satisfied by the P4,545.00 payment; and (3) whether the second alias writ was invalid for delegating the determination of the exact amount due to the Sheriff.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the modified decision of the appellate court. On the procedural issue, the Court held that while Section 11, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court requires a Sheriff’s Return before issuing an alias writ, the failure to submit one did not render the subsequent writs void, as the trial court had sufficient basis to determine the outstanding balance from its own records and motions. On the substantive issue of payment, the Court upheld the appellate court’s factual finding that full payment was mathematically impossible. The initial obligation was P7,068.45 per the compromise agreement, and Cruz only presented evidence of paying P4,545.00, leaving a balance. Cruz was estopped from disputing the principal amount after admitting it in the compromise agreement. The Court also found the second alias writ defective for instructing the Sheriff to deduct payments, as this vested a quasi-judicial function upon a ministerial officer, contrary to the rule that the amount on execution must be determined judicially. However, this defect did not nullify the entire proceeding, as the RTC later definitively fixed the balance at P1,614.45 in its order of August 9, 1983. Adopting this finding, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s modified ruling ordering Cruz to pay P1,614.45 with legal interest from August 9, 1983, emphasizing that factual findings of lower courts are generally final and conclusive unless unsupported by evidence.