G.R. No. L-74586 October 17, 1986
SERVICE SPECIALISTS, INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. THE SHERIFF OF MANILA, DEPUTY SHERIFF ENRIQUITO A. VIOLETA and ROY DIAZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Service Specialists, Inc. obtained a final and executory judgment against private respondent Roy Diaz in Civil Case No. 85-29444 for a sum of money. After the judgment became final, the trial court granted petitioner’s motion for execution. Subsequently, private respondent filed a petition for relief from judgment, which was docketed as a separate case, Civil Case No. 85-34098, and assigned to a different branch (Branch XII) of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The court in Branch XII dismissed this petition for relief for lack of jurisdiction. Private respondent filed a notice of appeal from this order of dismissal.
Thereafter, a writ of execution was issued, and respondent deputy sheriff levied upon private respondent’s properties. However, on the scheduled auction date, the sheriff refused to proceed with the sale due to private respondent’s protest, which was based on his pending appeal from the order dismissing his petition for relief. Petitioner thus filed this mandamus action to compel the sheriffs to proceed with the auction sale.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent sheriffs have a ministerial duty to proceed with the execution sale despite private respondent’s pending appeal from the order dismissing his petition for relief from judgment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus, directing the sheriffs to proceed with the auction. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of the original money judgment and the jurisdictional defects in private respondent’s attempt to forestall execution. First, a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 must be filed in the same court and in the same case that rendered the judgment. Here, private respondent erroneously filed it as a new case in a different branch (Branch XII), not in Branch L which rendered the original decision. Consequently, Branch XII correctly dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Second, the appeal from that dismissal order was itself flawed, as it was taken to the Intermediate Appellate Court instead of the Supreme Court via a petition for review. Therefore, the appeal did not constitute a legal impediment to execution. The original judgment remained final and executory. The duty to execute a final judgment is ministerial. The sheriffs had no discretion to suspend the sale based on an invalid protest. The Court also noted that the grounds for the petition for relief, such as the claim of improper pre-trial notice, were without merit, as notice to counsel with instructions to notify the client is sufficient. The levy was timely made within the reglementary period. Thus, mandamus lies to compel the performance of the sheriffs’ clear legal duty to enforce the writ of execution.