G.R. No. L-23977, July 30, 1969
THE MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY and MANTRADE, INC., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MARTIN SOUZA, respondents.

FACTS

On October 19, 1954, respondent Martin Souza executed a promissory note in favor of petitioner Manila Trading & Supply Company for P19,000.00, payable in installments with 12% annual interest. Due to Souza’s failure to pay certain installments, Manila Trading filed a suit and obtained a judgment in Civil Case No. 29049 of the Court of First Instance of Manila on April 18, 1956, for P10,035.98 plus agreed interest and P3,345.32 as attorney’s fees. After the judgment became final, Manila Trading obtained a writ of execution. Two of Souza’s trucks were levied and sold at public auction, but the proceeds were insufficient to satisfy the judgment. A second execution followed, resulting in the sale of Souza’s house and lot, but this also failed to cover the full amount. Manila Trading then filed a motion for an alias writ of execution, alleging through its counsel that the remaining balance was P2,730.87. The court granted the motion and issued the alias writ on March 18, 1957. The record does not show the outcome of this second alias execution.
Five years later, Manila Trading filed an action to revive the judgment (Civil Case No. 49263), claiming the outstanding balance was P9,730.87, not P2,730.87. It moved to reopen the case to present evidence of a mathematical error allegedly committed by its bookkeeper, which led its counsel to state the incorrect balance of P2,730.87 in the earlier motion for execution. The trial court granted the motion, received the additional evidence, and held the true balance was P9,730.87. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the balance remained P2,730.87. It ruled that in an action to revive a judgment, the court cannot correct an error in a prior judicial order (the 1957 order fixing the balance at P2,730.87) issued in the original case, as such correction must be made in the original case itself, not in a separate revival suit.

ISSUE

Whether, in an action for the revival of a judgment, the court can determine and declare that the outstanding balance of the judgment is an amount different from that previously fixed by a prior judicial order in the original case.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that in an action for revival of judgment, the court has the authority to inquire into and determine the true unpaid balance of the judgment, even if it differs from an amount stated in a prior order or writ of execution in the original case. The purpose of a revival suit is to allow the judgment creditor to obtain execution on the unpaid portion of the judgment after it has become dormant. The court in the revival action must ascertain the exact amount still due to ensure the execution is neither for more nor less than what is legally owed. It is not correcting the prior judgment or order of another court but is merely determining, for the purpose of the new action, the actual unsatisfied amount based on the facts and payments made. The Court found the Court of Appeals’ procedural objection—that the trial court could not correct an order from another case—to be untenable, as the revival action is precisely the proper proceeding to settle such matters. The case was returned to the Court of Appeals to determine, based on the evidence, whether the alleged mathematical error existed and what the true balance of the judgment was.