GR 92462; (June, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 92462 June 2, 1997
SANTIAGO GOKING, petitioner, vs. HON. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA, as Presiding Judge of the RTC of Misamis Oriental, 10th Judicial Region, Br. 23, Cagayan de Oro City, PEOPLE’S TRANS-EAST ASIA INSURANCE CORP. and FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO. OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Santiago Goking mortgaged his property to private respondent Firestone to secure an obligation of Three G Distributors, Inc. He entered into an indemnity agreement with Aggregated Underwriters Corporation, the General Agent of private respondent People’s Trans-East Asia Insurance Corporation, for the issuance of surety bonds. Petitioner paid premiums totaling P76,222.93 to the General Agent. People’s failed to honor the commitment and issue the surety bonds, resulting in the foreclosure of petitioner’s mortgaged property by Firestone. Petitioner, with other directors, filed Civil Case No. 9114 against the agents (Roque Villadores, Rodolfo Esculto, and Federico Garcia, Jr.) and obtained a final and executory judgment ordering said defendants to refund the premium of P76,222.93, plus damages. Separately, in Civil Case No. 9800 against People’s, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision ordering People’s to issue the approved surety bonds if the premium was not yet refunded, and to pay litigation expenses and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision but deleted the order for People’s to pay solidarily with the defendants in Civil Case No. 9114. Petitioner filed a Motion for Execution in Civil Case No. 9800, praying that the trial court modify its order and instead direct People’s to directly pay him the P76,222.93 as a refund. Respondent Judge Villaraza denied this motion, ruling that a trial court cannot modify the decision of the Court of Appeals and that petitioner’s remedy was to execute the final judgment in Civil Case No. 9114.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion for Execution in Civil Case No. 9800, which sought to order private respondent People’s to directly pay the premium refund of P76,222.93.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 9800, as modified by the Court of Appeals, ordered People’s to issue the surety bonds if the premium was not yet refunded; it did not order People’s to directly pay the premium refund. The premium refund had already been awarded to petitioner in the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 9114 against the individual agents. Petitioner’s correct recourse was to seek execution of that judgment in Civil Case No. 9114, not to substantially modify the dispositive portion of the final judgment in Civil Case No. 9800. The trial court cannot alter, amplify, or modify the decision of the Court of Appeals.