Service Specialists, Inc. v. Sheriff of Manila
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Service Specialists, Inc. (petitioner) initiated a replevin and damages action against Roy Diaz (private respondent) in Civil Case No. 85-29444. After the private respondent and his counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial conference, the court declared the private respondent in default. Subsequently, the court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner, ordering the private respondent to pay P83,412.76 for his total obligation, including attorney's fees, interests, liquidated damages, bonding fee, and repossession expenses, plus costs of suit. This decision became final and executory. 2. Procedural History: Following the finality of the judgment, the petitioner sought and obtained a writ of execution. In response, the private respondent filed a petition for relief from judgment, docketed as Civil Case No. 85-34098, which was assigned to a different branch of the Regional Trial Court. The petitioner moved to dismiss this petition, arguing it was filed out of time, lacked a good defense, failed to establish fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and was not filed in the same court and cause. The court dismissed the petition for relief due to lack of jurisdiction. The private respondent appealed this dismissal to the Intermediate Appellate Court. Meanwhile, a writ of execution was issued, and respondent sheriffs levied upon the private respondent's properties for auction. However, the sheriff refused to proceed with the sale due to the private respondent's protest based on his pending appeal. 3. The Petition: The petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the Sheriff of Manila and Deputy Sheriff Enriquito A. Violeta to proceed with the public auction of the private respondent's properties. The petitioner argues that the private respondent's petition for relief from judgment was improperly filed in a different branch and case, and that the appeal from the dismissal of the petition for relief did not stay the execution of the final and executory judgment because no preliminary injunction was obtained. The petitioner also contends that the petition for relief was filed out of time and lacked a meritorious defense, and that the appeal from the dismissal order should have been filed with the Supreme Court, not the Intermediate Appellate Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for mandamus to compel the sheriff to proceed with the sale at public auction should be granted. Whether the petition for relief from judgment was filed in the correct court and case. Whether an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for relief from judgment automatically stays the execution of the original final and executory judgment. Whether the petition for relief was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the notice of pre-trial was properly served.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is granted. Respondents Sheriff and Deputy Sheriff of Manila are directed to proceed with the sale at public auction of the properties of private respondent which had been levied upon on execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Petition for Mandamus: The Court held that the petition for mandamus should be granted. The Sheriff's duty to proceed with the execution of a final and executory judgment is ministerial. The Sheriff refused to proceed due to private respondent's protest based on an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for relief. However, this appeal did not automatically stay the execution of the original judgment. Therefore, the Sheriff should have proceeded with the sale. On the Jurisdiction of the Court for Petition for Relief: The Court reiterated that a petition for relief from judgment must be filed in the same court and in the same cause that rendered the judgment, as provided in Section 2 of Rule 38. In this case, the petition for relief was filed in a different branch of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, not the branch that rendered the original judgment. Consequently, the branch that heard the petition for relief lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine it. On the Effect of Appeal from Dismissal of Petition for Relief: The Court clarified that an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for relief from judgment does not automatically stay the execution of the original final and executory judgment. To stay execution, the petitioner must obtain a writ of preliminary injunction as provided in Section 5 of Rule 38. The mere filing of a notice of appeal from the dismissal order is insufficient to suspend the execution of the judgment. On the Reglementary Period for Petition for Relief: The Court found that the petition for relief was likely filed out of time. The private respondent failed to specify the date his counsel received a copy of the decision, despite being required by the Court. The Court noted that the period for filing a petition for relief begins to run from the date the petitioner's lawyer is notified of the decision. The delay in providing this information supported the petitioner's contention that the petition was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. On the Notice of Pre-Trial: The Court dismissed private respondent's claim that he did not receive proper notice of the pre-trial conference. Citing Taroma vs. Sayo, the Court reaffirmed that while notice must be served separately upon the party and his counsel, it is acceptable for trial courts to serve notice to the party through or care of his counsel, with the counsel obligated to notify the party. Private respondent's failure to appear at pre-trial, despite notice to his counsel, led to his default.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief from judgment must be filed in the same court and in the same cause that rendered the judgment. An appeal from an order dismissing a petition for relief does not automatically stay the execution of a final and executory judgment; a writ of preliminary injunction must be secured for that purpose.