G.R. No. L-18852 December 29, 1962
Lee Kim Pio, petitioner, vs. Francisco Dy Chin and Hon. Gregorio T. Lantin, Presiding Judge of Branch VII, Court of First Instance of Manila, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Lee Kim Pio obtained a final judgment against respondent Francisco Dy Chin, ordering Dy Chin to deliver to him 8.333 shares of stock of Mariano Uy Chaco Sons & Co., Inc., or their monetary equivalent, plus interest and attorney’s fees. To satisfy this judgment, a writ of execution was issued. In response, Dy Chin executed a Deed of Assignment purportedly conveying the 8.333 shares to Lee Kim Pio. Petitioner’s then-counsel, Atty. Jose C. Magat, received the original of this deed. Subsequently, Dy Chin paid the amounts for interest and attorney’s fees to Atty. Magat, who issued a receipt. The sheriff later returned the writ unsatisfied, reporting that Dy Chin stated he could not and was unwilling to deliver the shares.
Lee Kim Pio, through new counsel, moved to declare Dy Chin in contempt for non-compliance and later sought an alias writ of execution. The respondent judge denied both the contempt motion and the motion for an alias writ. The court found that Dy Chin had complied with the judgment through the Deed of Assignment and the payment to the attorney of record. Lee Kim Pio filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus to challenge these orders.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for contempt and the motion for an alias writ of execution, thereby refusing to enforce the final judgment.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. The Court affirmed the order denying the contempt motion but set aside the order denying the alias writ and directed its issuance for a specific purpose. The legal logic is twofold. First, regarding compliance, the Deed of Assignment executed by Dy Chin and the payment to petitioner’s attorney of record constituted valid acts of satisfaction. The assignment was a unilateral act in obedience to the judgment, not a bilateral contract requiring the petitioner’s signature. Payment to the attorney of record, while he was still acting as such, was equivalent to payment to the client himself. Therefore, the trial court correctly found no contempt for failure to deliver the shares via the deed.
Second, however, the Court ruled that Dy Chin had not fully complied with the judgment’s specific directive to deliver Stock Certificate No. 280, from which the 8.333 shares were to be taken. The sheriff’s return did not indicate a specific demand for this certificate, referring only generally to the “shares of stock.” Since the transfer of the shares was covered by the deed, contempt was not warranted, but Dy Chin could still be compelled to deliver the physical stock certificate. Thus, an alias writ of execution was proper solely to enforce the delivery of Stock Certificate No. 280. The respondent judge’s denial of the alias writ constituted a grave abuse of discretion regarding this ministerial duty to enforce the judgment completely.