Potenciano v. Mariano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered a judgment ordering Antonio Quirino, et al. to pay Maxima Blouse Potenciano the sum of P16,000.00, with interest, attorney's fees, and liquidated damages. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, but their appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief, and entry of judgment was made on November 13, 1962. Writs of execution were issued by the Manila court but the judgment remained unsatisfied. Procedural History: On May 6, 1964, Mrs. Potenciano filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig Branch X) for the examination of Antonio Quirino, alleging a remaining balance of P22,645.00. Due to Quirino's alleged dilatory tactics, the proceedings remained pending. On July 16, 1968, the Rizal court issued an order declaring Quirino's six lots and residential house in Rizal, and two lots and a house in Baguio, all mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank, as "available for the satisfaction of the judgment debt." Quirino also owned shares of stock in General Fertilizer Corporation. Mrs. Potenciano moved for the sale of these properties to satisfy the debt, which had grown to P23,990.00. The Rizal court denied this motion. Subsequently, Mrs. Potenciano filed a "motion for execution" in the Rizal court, again asking for the sale of Quirino's properties. Quirino opposed, arguing the five-year period for execution by motion had expired. The Rizal court denied this motion on November 21, 1968, holding that it should be filed in the Manila court. However, it also ruled that Quirino's contention of prescription was unjust due to his dilatory tactics and that the motion for examination suspended the running of the period for execution by motion. A motion for reconsideration was denied on March 14, 1969. The Petition: Mrs. Potenciano filed the instant special civil action of mandamus to compel the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal to order the sale of Quirino's properties to satisfy the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Rizal can be compelled by mandamus to order the sale of the judgment debtor's properties to satisfy a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila; specifically, whether the Rizal court can be compelled to sell Quirino's shares of stock and his interest in the mortgaged lots. Whether the five-year period for enforcing the judgment by motion had expired, considering the proceedings and alleged dilatory tactics of the judgment debtor; specifically, whether the motion for examination of the judgment debtor and the mandamus action effectively suspended the prescriptive period.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Rizal court directing the petitioner to secure a writ of execution from the Manila court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue: The Supreme Court held that the Rizal court cannot be compelled by mandamus to sell Quirino's shares of stock and his interest in the mortgaged lots and apply the proceeds to the judgment debt. Proceedings supplementary to execution are designed to aid judgment creditors but are not a substitute for execution. Quirino's interest in the mortgaged lots was merely an equity of redemption, an intangible right, which could be levied upon by a writ of execution issued by the Manila court. Similarly, his shares in the General Fertilizer Corporation could be levied upon by a writ of execution from the Manila court. Therefore, it is the Manila court that should take the necessary measures to reach Quirino's properties for satisfaction of its judgment, not the Rizal court. On the second issue: The Supreme Court affirmed the Rizal court's ruling that the five-year period for enforcing the judgment by execution was interrupted or suspended. This suspension was attributed to the petitioner's filing of the motion for examination of the judgment debtor and the subsequent filing of the instant mandamus action. Proceedings supplementary to execution and the mandamus case effectively amounted to a stay of execution. In computing the time limit for suing out an execution, the time during which execution is stayed should be excluded, and the time will be extended by any delay occasioned by the debtor. The Rizal court had found that Quirino had delayed the execution of the judgment, further supporting the suspension of the prescriptive period.
Main Doctrine
A court of first instance where supplementary proceedings are conducted cannot be compelled by mandamus to order the sale of a judgment debtor's properties and apply the proceeds to the satisfaction of a judgment rendered by another court of first instance; such action must be taken by the court that rendered the judgment. Furthermore, the filing of a motion for examination of the judgment debtor in supplementary proceedings, or the filing of a mandamus action to compel such examination, suspends the running of the five-year period for enforcing a judgment by motion.