GR L 72746; (May, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-72746 May 7, 1987
BERNARDA S. CANONIZADO, petitioner, vs. HON. REGINA ORDOÑEZ BENITEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH XLVII, MANILA and ATTY. CESAR R. CANONIZADO, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a 1956 action for support filed by petitioner Bernarda Canonizado against her estranged husband, private respondent Atty. Cesar Canonizado. After protracted litigation, a final and executory decision was rendered, awarding arrearages in support. On July 22, 1976, a writ of execution was issued to collect these amounts, but collection was repeatedly deferred due to a series of unfulfilled compromise agreements. On April 4, 1977, the petitioner filed a motion for an alias writ of execution. The respondent judge denied this motion, ruling that the decision could no longer be enforced by mere motion due to the lapse of more than five years. This prompted the petitioner to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for mandamus.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to issue an alias writ of execution for the enforcement of a final and executory judgment for support arrears, and whether mandamus lies to compel the performance of this duty.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court held that the respondent judge’s refusal to issue the alias writ of execution constituted a refusal to perform a ministerial duty, which is compellable by mandamus. The final and executory decision awarding support arrears from 1956 to 1972 created vested rights in favor of the petitioner and her daughter. The Court had already ordered the issuance of such a writ in a prior related case (G.R. No. L-49315), and that directive was not affected by the husband’s pending motion to terminate future support from 1973 onward. The Court clarified that while mandamus cannot control judicial discretion, it can command the performance of a purely ministerial act. The act of issuing and enforcing a writ of execution pursuant to a final judgment and a direct order from the Supreme Court is ministerial. The respondent judge was therefore ordered to immediately enforce the alias writ against properties of the private respondent not exempt from execution. The Court also fined the private respondent for contempt due to his failure to comply with procedural directives. The claim for legal interest on the arrears was denied as it was not part of the final judgment and was raised for the first time on appeal.