G.R. No. L-18054, December 22, 1961
THE CITY OF BUTUAN, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE MONTANO A. ORTIZ and JUSTINIANO SORIANO, respondents.

FACTS

Police Corporal Justiniano Soriano was administratively charged and suspended by Butuan City Mayor Zacarias Pizarro on March 11, 1954. The Municipal Board found him guilty on May 9, 1954. Soriano appealed this decision to the Commissioner of Civil Service. Meanwhile, on June 1, 1954, Soriano filed a special civil action for mandamus in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Agusan, docketed as Special Civil Action No. 16. He argued that under Republic Act No. 557 , his suspension beyond the 60-day period without a final decision entitled him to reinstatement.
The CFI, through Judge Francisco Arca, ruled in Soriano’s favor on August 13, 1954, ordering his immediate reinstatement pending the final outcome of the administrative case. Subsequently, on November 27, 1954, the Commissioner of Civil Service affirmed the Municipal Board’s decision, finding Soriano guilty and ordering his separation from the service. Nearly five years later, on January 12, 1960, Soriano filed an ex-parte motion for the execution of the CFI’s 1954 reinstatement order. Judge Montano Ortiz granted the motion, prompting the City of Butuan to file the instant petition to annul the order of execution.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of its 1954 reinstatement judgment despite a subsequent final administrative decision from the Commissioner of Civil Service affirming Soriano’s dismissal.

RULING

Yes, the CFI committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the order of execution. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a supervening event can render the execution of a final judgment unjust or impossible. While the CFI’s 1954 decision was legally correct at the time—based on the lapse of the 60-day statutory period for deciding administrative cases—and was still within the five-year period for enforcement by motion, a decisive subsequent event had occurred.
The final administrative decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service on November 27, 1954, which affirmed Soriano’s guilt and ordered his separation from service, constituted a valid supervening impediment. This decision conclusively established that Soriano was validly dismissed, thereby extinguishing any right to reinstatement that the earlier CFI judgment had temporarily recognized. To allow execution of the reinstatement order after the final administrative dismissal would be unjust and would contravene the settled doctrine that courts may modify or alter the execution of a judgment when post-judgment facts and circumstances make its enforcement inequitable. The right to a writ of execution is not absolute and must yield to superior considerations of justice when subsequent events have overtaken the judgment.