Rule 39 - Dayanghirang
Rule 39 - Dayanghirang
The term “final” when used to describe a judgment may be used in two senses:
- Since the finality of a judgment has the effect of ending the litigation, an
aggrieved party may then appeal from the judgment. Under Sec. 1, Rule 41,
an appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely
disposes of the case. Under the same rule, an appeal cannot be taken from an
interlocutory order.
- In another sense, the word “final” may refer to a judgment that is no longer
appealable and is already capable of being executed because the period for
appeal has elapsed without a party having perfected an appeal or if there has
been appeal, it has already been resolved by a highest possible tribunal.
1. Upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been
duly perfected.
2. Appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved.
- When a judgment becomes final and executory, all the issues between the
parties are deemed resolved and laid to rest. All that remains is the execution
of the decision which is a matter of right. However, the Court enumerates the
instances where a writ of execution may be appealed, one of which is when
there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution
inequitable or unjust. Also, Sec. 5, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court states that it
is an inherent power of a court to amend and control its process and orders so
as to make them conformable to law and justice
- Execution is a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal and
no appeal was perfected from a judgment or order that disposes of the action
or proceeding (Sec. 1, Rule 39). Once a judgment becomes final and executory,
the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right, and the issuance
of a writ of execution becomes the ministerial duty of the court. Once a
decision becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the
presiding judge to issue a writ of execution except in certain cases, as when
subsequent events would render execution of judgment unjust
- Once a judgment becomes final, it is basic that the prevailing party is entitled
as a matter of right to a writ of execution the issuance of which is the trial
court’s ministerial duty, compellable by mandamus”
- Under Sec. 1, Rule 39, execution shall issue only as a matter of right upon a
judgment or final order that finally disposes of the action or proceeding upon
the execution of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly
perfected.
- The general rule is that only judgments which have become final and
executory may be executed. However, discretionary execution of appealed
judgments may be allowed under Section 2 (a) of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules
of Civil Procedure upon concurrence of the following requisites: (a) there
must be a motion by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; (b)
there must be a good reason for execution pending appeal; and (c) the good
reason must be stated in a special order. The yardstick remains the presence
or the absence of good reasons consisting of exceptional circumstances of
such urgency as to outweigh the injury or damage that the losing party may
suffer, should the appealed judgment be reversed later. Since the execution of
a judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule, the existence
of good reasons is essential
- The Court of Appeals properly upheld the Regional Trial Court's issuance of
a writ of execution pending appeal. Under Rule 39, Section 2(a), a judgment
appealed before the Court of Appeals may still be executed by the Regional
Trial Court, provided there are good reasons for the judgment's execution.
Residual Jurisdiction
- Residual jurisdiction refers to the authority of the trial court to issue orders
for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not
involve any matter litigated by the appeal; to approve compromises; to
permit appeals by indigent litigants; to order execution pending appeal in
accordance with Section 2, Rule 39; and to allow the withdrawal of the
appeal, provided these are done prior to the transmittal of the original record
or the record on appeal, even if the appeal has already been perfected or
despite the approval of the record on appeal or in case of a petition for review
under Rule 42, before the CA gives due course to the petition.
- In executing a judgment for money, the sheriff shall follow the following
steps:
1. Demand from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full
amount stated in the judgment including the lawful fees in cash, certified
check payable to the judgment obligee or any other form of payment
acceptable to him (Sec. 9). In emphasizing this rule, the SC held that in the
execution of a money judgment, the sheriff is required to first make a
demand on the obligor for the immediate payment of the full amount
stated in the writ of execution
2. If the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash,
certified check or other mode of payment, the officer shall levy upon the
properties of the judgment obligor. The judgment obligor shall have the
option to choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon. If the
judgment obligor does not exercise the option, the officer shall first levy
on the personal properties, if any, and then on the real properties if the
personal properties are insufficient to answer for the personal judgment
but the sheriff shall sell only so much of the property that is sufficient to
satisfy the judgment and lawful fees (Sec. 9[b]).
- If the judgment requires a person to perform a specific act, said act must be
performed but if the party fails to comply within the specified time, the court
may direct the act to be done by someone at the cost of the disobedient party
and the act when so done shall have the effect as if done by the party (Sec
10[a]). If the judgment directs a conveyance of real or personal property, and
said property is in the Philippines, the court in lieu of directing the
conveyance thereof, may by an order divest the title of any party and vest it
in others, which shall have the force and effect of a conveyance executed in
due form of law (Sec. 10[a], Rule 39).
- When a judgment requires the performance of any act other than those
mentioned in the two preceding sections, a certified copy of the judgment
shall be attached to the writ of execution and shall be served by the officer
upon the party against whom the same is rendered, or upon any other person
required thereby, or by law, to obey the same, and such party or person may
be punished for contempt if he disobeys such judgment.
- The levy on execution shall create a lien in favor of the judgment obligee over
the right, title and interest of the judgment obligor in such property at the
time of the levy, subject to liens and encumbrances then existing.
Sec. 16. Proceedings where property claimed by third person.
If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment obligor
or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or right to the
possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves the same
upon the officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the
officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment obligee, on
demand of the officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-
party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on. In case of
disagreement as to such value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing the
writ of execution. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property
may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the property,
to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed. Nothing herein contained shall
prevent such claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property
in a separate action, or prevent the judgment obligee from claiming damages in the
same or a separate action against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or
plainly spurious claim.
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, or
any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in
case the sheriff or levying officer is sued for damages as a result of the levy, he shall
be represented by the Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual
damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of such
funds as may be appropriated for the purpose.
- If the property levied on is claimed by any person other than the judgment
obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto or
right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and
serves the same upon the officer making the levy and a copy thereof upon the
judgment obligee, the officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless
such judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by
the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the
value of the property levied on. In case of disagreement as to such value, the
same shall be determined by the court issuing the writ of execution.
- Requisites for a claim by a third person [Relate with Rule 57, Sec. 14, and Rule
60, Sec. 7)]:
- In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter
directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in
relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in
interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special
proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the
same capacity; and
- In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest,
that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final
order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was
actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
o The first is bar by prior judgment under Rule 39, Section 47(b), and the
second is conclusiveness of judgment under Rule 39, Section 47(c).
Jurisprudence taught us well that res judicata under the first concept
or as a bar against the prosecution of a second action exists when there
is identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action in the first and
second actions. The judgment in the first action is final as to the claim
or demand in controversy, including the parties and those in privity
with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received
to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other
admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and
of all matters that could have been adjudged in that case. The case at
hand satisfies the essential requisites of res judicata under the first
concept. The RTC is therefore correct in dismissing the case on the
ground of res judicata