Jacinto v. Montesa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alpha Investments and Finance Corporation filed a suit against Pastor D. Ago and Domingo T. Jacinto to recover P26,000.00 plus attorney's fees and costs. Only Pastor D. Ago answered; Domingo T. Jacinto was declared in default. Subsequently, a "Stipulation of Facts and Compromise Agreement" was executed, admitting joint and several liability for P25,654.00 with interest, payable in installments. This agreement was signed by Alpha Investments' counsel and by Pastor D. Ago for "Defendants," assisted by Atty. Jose M. Luison as "Counsel for Defendants." Procedural History: The trial court rendered judgment based on the compromise agreement. Upon failure to comply, Alpha Investments moved for a writ of execution, which was issued but expired unserved. An alias writ of execution was subsequently secured. Domingo T. Jacinto filed a motion to quash the alias writ, arguing he was not a party to the compromise, had not authorized Ago or his counsel to represent him, and had not been notified. The trial court denied the motion. Jacinto's petition for certiorari and prohibition to the Court of Appeals was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. He then filed the present petition with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Domingo T. Jacinto sought to enjoin the enforcement of the alias writ of execution and the levy on his properties, reiterating his claims that he was not a party to the compromise agreement and had not authorized anyone to represent him therein.
Issue(s)
Whether the compromise agreement and the judgment based thereon are binding and enforceable against Domingo T. Jacinto. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the alias writ of execution against Domingo T. Jacinto. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The orders of the lower court issuing the original and alias writs of execution are declared null and void and set aside insofar as they affect Domingo T. Jacinto. The preliminary injunction is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the compromise agreement and the judgment are binding against Domingo T. Jacinto: The Supreme Court held that the compromise agreement and the judgment based thereon are not binding on Domingo T. Jacinto. The Court found Jacinto's claim credible that he had not authorized Pastor D. Ago or Atty. Jose M. Luison to represent him in the compromise agreement. The Court emphasized that Section 23 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates special authority for attorneys to compromise their client's litigation, which was not evident in this case. Since Jacinto was not a signatory and there was no showing of special authority, the agreement was not binding upon him. Furthermore, the Court noted that Jacinto had been declared in default and no evidence was adduced against him, rendering the judgment against him invalid. On whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the alias writ of execution: The Court ruled that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the alias writ of execution against Jacinto. A judgment based on a compromise entered into without the client's special authority is considered null and void ab initio. Consequently, the court acquires no jurisdiction to render such a judgment, nor to order its execution. The issuance of an execution on a void judgment constitutes grave abuse of discretion. On whether certiorari is the proper remedy: The Supreme Court held that certiorari was the proper remedy despite the general rule that it is not available when there is an appeal or other adequate remedy. The Court explained that while a petition for relief from judgment or an appeal from the order issuing the alias writ might have been available, these remedies were rendered inadequate or ineffective because the writ of execution was already in the process of being carried out. The Court reiterated that when a writ of execution is being enforced, and the underlying judgment is void, certiorari may be allowed to prevent injustice and to give a party litigant his day in court. The Court cited previous rulings that a void judgment can be impugned in any proceeding, and its execution restrained.
Main Doctrine
A judgment based on a compromise agreement entered into by an attorney without special authority from the client is null and void and its execution may be restrained. Certiorari lies when a writ of execution is in the process of being carried out, rendering other remedies inadequate.