GR L 46003; (April, 1939) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-46003; April 29, 1939
SIXTO DE LA COSTA, Judge of First Instance of Rizal, MARCIANO STO. DOMINGO and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, petitioners, vs. BONIFACIO CLEOFAS, respondent.
FACTS
In Civil Case No. 6123, the parties submitted a stipulation which the court approved as its judgment. The judgment ordered respondent Bonifacio Cleofas to pay petitioner Marciano Sto. Domingo P1,200 under certain terms and conditions. After the judgment became final, Sto. Domingo moved for its execution, claiming a balance of P995. Cleofas opposed, alleging that after the judgment, they entered into a subsequent agreement modifying the payment terms and the amount due, and that he had made payments under this new agreement, reducing the balance to an amount less than P995. Without conducting a hearing or liquidation to determine the correct balance under the judgment as potentially modified by the subsequent agreement, the Court of First Instance, through Judge Sixto de la Costa, granted the motion and ordered execution for P995, authorizing the sheriff to effect the sale of Cleofas’s property.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of the judgment without first conducting a liquidation to determine the correct balance due, considering the allegation of a subsequent agreement modifying the obligation.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which annulled the order of execution. The Court held that when, after a final judgment, facts and circumstances arise that render its execution unjust or necessitate its modification, the interested party is entitled to a hearing. Here, Cleofas’s uncontradicted allegation of a subsequent agreement modifying the payment terms required the trial court to first conduct a liquidation to ascertain the true balance due. The trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion by ordering execution without such liquidation and by improperly delegating this judicial function to the sheriff. The remedy of certiorari pursued by Cleofas in the Court of Appeals was proper, as an appeal would not have provided an adequate and speedy remedy under the circumstances. The petition for certiorari was denied, and the Court of Appeals’ decision was upheld.
AI Generated by Armztrong.