GR. No.171095
MAYOR MARCIAL VARGAS and ENGR.
RAYMUNDO DEL ROSARIO, Petitioners,
FORTUNATO CAJUCOM, Respondent
In the complaint, Cajucom alleged that
he had intended to start a gasoline station business on his lot in Aliaga,
Nueva Ecija, but several illegal structures built on the road shoulder by Puno,
et al. were obstructing access to his site, thus, also frustrating his
plan. He claimed that demand was made for Puno, et al. to remove their
structures, but to no avail. Cajucom then alleged that he tried to enlist the
help of Mayor Vargas and Engr. Del Rosario, but the latter similarly did not
act. Cajucom ultimately prayed for
the court to command the said
municipal mayor and engineer to cause the removal of all buildings and
structures built on the concerned road shoulder by Puno, et al.
On February 14, 2001, the court
rendered a Decision in favor of Cajucom. It held that as correctly alleged by
Cajucom, the mayor and municipal engineer failed to perform their duties under
the Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Local
Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), among which duties is the duty
to order the demolition or removal of illegally constructed houses, buildings
or other structures on the road shoulder.
No appeal was interposed from the
decision. As the decision became final and executory, Cajucom filed a Motion
for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution.
Then, the court sheriff reported that
on May 28, 2001, he served a copy of the writ of execution on Mayor Vargas and
Engr. del Rosario. The writ of execution was signed as received by the mayor's
private secretary and by Engr. del Rosario on said date. However, the sheriff
also reported in his Return of Service dated July 2, 2001 that, as of June 13,
2001 the judgment has not been executed.
Puno, et al. filed a petition
for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals to annul the February 14,
2001 decision of the RTC. That case
was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69035 entitled Rodel Puno et al. v. Raymundo
Annang, et al. The grounds alleged in the petition include the trial
court's lack of jurisdiction and its speculation as to certain facts of the
case.
Issue: whether grounds
exist to quash the subject writ of execution.
Held:
It is a consistent practice that once
a judgment has become final and executory, a writ of execution is issued as a
matter of course, in the absence of any order restraining its issuance. In
addition, even a writ of demolition, if the case calls for it, is ancillary to
the process of execution and is logically also issued as a consequence of the
writ of execution earlier issued.
Rule
39 of the Rules of Court is clear:
Section
1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. − Execution shall issue
as a matter of right, or motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the
action or proceeding upon the expiration of
the
period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected
and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court
of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified
true copies of the
judgment or judgments or final order
or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the
adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in
the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of
origin to issue the writ of execution.
Petitioners cite the following as
grounds for the quashal of the writ of execution: (1) that it allegedly would
compel the municipal engineer to exercise the powers and duties of the mayor;
(2) that it forces the
mayor to perform a discretionary duty;
(3) that there was no exhaustion of administrative remedies; and, (4) that the
judgment obligee had no well-defined, clear and certain right to warrant the grant
of mandamus.
Such grounds, however, go into the
substance and merits of the case which had been decided with finality, and have
no bearing on the validity of the issuance of the writ of execution.
Puno, et al., filed a petition
to annul the judgment, also raising the trial court's alleged lack of
jurisdiction and the same arguments as aforementioned, but such petition was
denied by the CA, which denial was
affirmed with finality by the Supreme
Court. Hence, to this Court, the final judgment has become the law of the case
which is now immovable. The rudiments of fair play, justice, and due process
require that parties cannot raise for the first time on appeal from a denial of
a motion to quash a writ of execution issues which they could have raised but
never did during the trial and even on appeal from the decision of the trial
court
The petition does not clearly state
whether the subject writ of execution falls under any of the above exceptions.
It raised two grounds, i.e., that the writ is incapable of being
enforced and that it varies the
judgment, which can be interpreted as
falling under the exceptions above, but these grounds as applied to the case at
bar simply lack merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment