G.R. No. L-23707 and L-23720 January 17, 1968
JOSE A. V. CORPUS, petitioner, vs. HON. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA, as Presiding Judge of Branch XXII, Court of First Instance of Manila and ACME MANUFACTURING, CO., INC., respondents. / JOSE A. V. CORPUS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ACME STEEL MANUFACTURING CO., INC., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

A foreclosure suit was settled by a compromise judgment on May 26, 1964. The terms stipulated that the unpaid balance was P100,000.00, payable anytime until December 15, 1965. Advance interest payments were required: P6,500.00 by May 30, 1964, and P6,000.00 by June 15, 1964. The agreement stated that failure to pay any of these amounts would entitle the plaintiff to execution for the entire balance. Defendant Acme issued two checks for these amounts. The first was honored, but the second check for P6,000.00, postdated June 16, 1964, was dishonored for insufficient funds. Plaintiff Jose A. V. Corpus immediately moved for execution of the entire balance on June 25, 1964. Defendant opposed, citing oversight and a computational error, and claimed it had informed plaintiff he could redeposit the check. The trial court ordered execution on August 18, 1964. Defendant appealed this order (L-23720). The trial court allowed the appeal on October 7, 1964. Meanwhile, Corpus filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (L-23707) to nullify the allowance of the appeal and compel execution.

ISSUE

Whether the order of execution issued by the trial court is appealable.

RULING

No, the order of execution is not appealable. The Supreme Court ruled that the general principle is that an order of execution is not appealable to prevent endless litigation. The exceptions, where such an order varies the judgment’s tenor or where the judgment’s terms are unclear requiring interpretation, do not apply here. The compromise judgment’s terms were complete, definite, and certain, with no suspensive conditions. The dishonor of the check for advance interest, which was the main consideration for extending the payment period, constituted a violation under Article 1198(4) of the Civil Code, causing the debtor to lose the right to the period. The trial court’s issuance of execution was correct, but it gravely abused its discretion in allowing an appeal from that non-appealable order. In L-23720, the order of execution is affirmed. In L-23707, the writs of certiorari and prohibition are granted, nullifying the orders allowing the appeal, and mandamus is issued to compel execution. Costs against Acme.