Pamantasan Ng Lungsod Ng Maynila v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Supreme Court previously dismissed for review in G.R. No. 65439, affirming the Civil Service Commission's Resolution No. 81-279 and Resolution No. 81-510, which declared Dr. Hernani Esteban's appointment as vice-president for administration permanent and ordered his reinstatement with back salaries, allowances, and other benefits, provided he had not reached the age of compulsory retirement. The Court modified this to limit back salaries to a maximum of five years. Procedural History: Dr. Esteban filed an "Ex-Parte Motion for Immediate Execution" before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch XIII, and a writ of execution was issued. The writ was returned unsatisfied because the Pamantasan Ng Lungsod Ng Maynila (PLM) stated that Dr. Esteban had reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 on July 20, 1984, making his reinstatement subject to a condition that was no longer met. Dr. Esteban sought an alias writ of execution, but the RTC denied his motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Dr. Esteban filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, appealing the RTC's orders denying the alias writ and reconsideration, on pure questions of law. The Supreme Court noted that this was an erroneous mode of appeal under Republic Act No. 5440, which requires a petition for review on certiorari, and that Dr. Esteban failed to timely pay docket and legal research fund fees. The Court treated the appeal as a motion for clarification of its previous decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in denying the motion for an alias writ of execution for Dr. Esteban's reinstatement. Whether the mode of appeal (notice of appeal instead of petition for review) was proper. Whether the payment of docket and legal research fees was timely.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the case and cautioned the RTC judge and clerk of court to abide by the procedure in Republic Act No. 5440. The Court denied Dr. Esteban's motion for an alias writ of execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the alias writ of execution: The Court reiterated the principle that execution must conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment. An execution that varies the terms of the judgment or exceeds it has no validity and is considered a nullity, an act in excess of the trial court's jurisdiction. In this case, the original decision explicitly conditioned Dr. Esteban's reinstatement on his not having reached the age of compulsory retirement. Since the records showed he had reached this age, a writ compelling his reinstatement would vary the terms of the judgment. The RTC's denial of the alias writ was therefore a faithful performance of its duty and obedience to the Supreme Court's pronouncements, not an error. The Court commended the RTC for its fealty to duty, noting that judicial power cannot be enlarged by emotions, and that reinstatement in this instance would be merely symbolic, as Dr. Esteban's rights had already been vindicated by the Court's previous pronouncements. On the mode of appeal: The Court noted that Dr. Esteban erroneously filed a notice of appeal instead of a petition for review on certiorari as required by Republic Act No. 5440. Furthermore, he failed to timely pay the docket and legal research fund fees. These procedural defects were sufficient grounds to dismiss the petition outright, as the questioned orders of the lower court had become final and executory. On the timeliness of fees: The failure to timely pay the docket and legal research fund fees, in addition to the improper mode of appeal, rendered the "appeal" dismissible. The Court pointed out that the respondent judge and clerk of court erred in elevating the records based on a notice of appeal without noting the obvious procedural error.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution must conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment it seeks to enforce; an execution that varies the terms of the judgment or exceeds it has no validity and is considered a nullity, an act in excess of jurisdiction.