Lee Kim Pio v. Dy Chin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Lee Kim Pio obtained a final judgment in Civil Case No. 31335 against respondent Francisco Dy Chin. The judgment ordered Dy Chin to deliver Stock Certificate No. 280 for ten shares of Mariano Uy Chaco Sons & Co., Inc., valued at P10,000.00, or its equivalent, with interest and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals modified this, ordering the delivery of 8,333 shares or its equivalent of P8,333.33. Procedural History: A writ of execution was issued. Respondent Dy Chin executed a Deed of Assignment for 8.333 shares and paid the interests and attorney's fees to petitioner's counsel, Atty. Jose C. Magat. The sheriff returned the writ unsatisfied, stating Dy Chin was unwilling to deliver the shares. Petitioner filed a motion for contempt, which was denied by the trial court, holding that Dy Chin had complied. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and for an alias writ of execution were also denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner sought to set aside the orders denying the contempt petition and to compel the issuance of an alias writ of execution. Petitioner argued that the Deed of Assignment was null and void as it was executed without his knowledge or consent and that the shares were never delivered nor transferred to his name. He also contended that the assignment violated Articles 1624 and 1475 of the New Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deed of Assignment executed by respondent Dy Chin in favor of petitioner Lee Kim Pio constitutes full compliance with the judgment. Whether respondent Dy Chin is guilty of contempt of court for failure to deliver the shares of stock. Whether an alias writ of execution should be issued for the delivery of Stock Certificate No. 280.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the order denying the petition for contempt but set aside the order denying the alias writ of execution, directing the respondent judge to issue an alias writ of execution solely for the delivery of Stock Certificate No. 280.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the Deed of Assignment executed by respondent Dy Chin was a valid mode of compliance with the judgment ordering the transfer of shares. The Court explained that such an assignment was not a bilateral contract requiring the personal consent of the petitioner but rather an act performed in obedience to a court order. The Court further held that the payment of interests and attorney's fees to petitioner's counsel of record, Atty. Jose C. Magat, while he was still counsel, constituted valid payment to the petitioner himself. Therefore, the assignment and payment to counsel were considered sufficient compliance with the judgment regarding the shares and monetary awards. On Issue 2: Based on the finding that the Deed of Assignment and the payment to counsel constituted compliance, the Court affirmed the denial of the contempt petition. The Court reasoned that respondent Dy Chin had taken the necessary steps to satisfy the judgment as ordered by the court. The failure to personally deliver the shares to the petitioner was mitigated by the execution of the deed of assignment and the payment of monetary awards to his counsel. The Court emphasized that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to demand the deed of assignment and the paid amounts from his lawyer. On Issue 3: While the Deed of Assignment covered the shares, the Court noted that the physical Stock Certificate No. 280, from which the adjudicated shares were to be taken, had not been explicitly delivered. The sheriff's return mentioned an unwillingness to deliver the "shares of stock" but not the certificate itself. Therefore, the Court found that the judgment had not been fully satisfied in this specific regard and directed the issuance of an alias writ of execution solely for the purpose of compelling the delivery of Stock Certificate No. 280 to the petitioner, as originally ordered in the final judgment.
Main Doctrine
A deed of assignment executed by a judgment debtor in compliance with a court order to deliver shares of stock is a valid mode of compliance, even without the express consent of the judgment creditor, as it fulfills a judicial mandate. Furthermore, payment of monetary awards, such as interests and attorney's fees, made to the judgment creditor's counsel of record, who is still acting in that capacity, is considered valid payment to the creditor. However, the physical stock certificate itself may still be subject to an alias writ of execution if it is not delivered.