Villamayor v. Luciano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In Special Proceedings No. QC-00657, Luciano M. Dominguez, private respondent, sought payment of his monthly legal retainer's fees from May 1971 to May 1974 from the estate of the minor Nora Villamayor (Nora Aunor). Procedural History: The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City, through respondent Judge Leonor Ines Luciano, ordered the guardian of the minor's estate to pay Atty. Dominguez P108,000.00. Despite a grace period, payment was not made, leading to a writ of execution on April 3, 1975, for P108,000.00 plus legal interests from December 4, 1974. Subsequently, Atty. Dominguez claimed partial payment and an outstanding balance, while petitioner Nora Villamayor asserted that the total collected exceeded the awarded amount and sought a refund of the excess and annulment of the interest award. The respondent court, in an order dated September 2, 1976, granted a portion of Atty. Dominguez's subsequent request for payment and denied the ward's motion to declare the April 3, 1975 order void regarding interest, setting the case for reception of evidence on an application of payment. The Petition: Petitioner Nora Villamayor filed a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the orders of April 3, 1975, and September 2, 1976, arguing they were issued in excess of jurisdiction by including interest on the P108,000.00 award, which had become final and executory without provision for interest.
Issue(s)
Whether the orders dated April 3, 1975, and September 2, 1976, requiring the payment of interest on the P108,000.00 award were issued with or in excess of jurisdiction. Whether the principle of estoppel applies to validate the inclusion of interest in the writ of execution.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The orders of the respondent court dated April 3, 1975, and September 2, 1976, are annulled and set aside insofar as they require the payment of interest on the amount of P108,000.00. Costs against the private respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction over the inclusion of interest: The Court held that the order of December 4, 1974, which directed the payment of P108,000.00 to the private respondent, had become final and executory. This original order did not contain any provision for the collection of interest on the said amount. Consequently, the subsequent order of April 3, 1975, which directed the issuance of a writ of execution for the principal amount plus legal interests thereon from December 4, 1974, was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Court reiterated the ruling in Robles vs. Timario that it is beyond the power of courts to issue a writ of execution for the payment of the principal obligation with interest when the judgment itself does not provide for such interest. The order of September 2, 1976, which further specified amounts related to interest, was also consequently affected. On the plea of estoppel: The Court found the plea of estoppel to be without merit. It reasoned that estoppel cannot validate a void order that was issued without jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be acquired by the consent of the parties or by estoppel. Furthermore, the Court noted that it could not be said with certainty that the petitioner had acquiesced to the payment of interest, especially in light of her claim for the refund of amounts collected by the private respondent in excess of the P108,000.00 award.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution cannot include interest on the principal obligation if the judgment itself does not provide for such interest, as this would be an amendment or modification of a final and executory judgment, issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. Estoppel cannot validate a void order issued without jurisdiction.