Shell Company v. Sastre
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Civil Case No. 939 was filed by Eustaquia Sastre against The Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. (Shell) for the collection of alleged commission from sales and for overpayment. On June 2, 1969, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Sastre, ordering Shell to reimburse P624,042.23 for overpayment, P50,000.00 for actual and moral damages, P50,000.00 for exemplary damages, P10,000.00 for attorney's fees, and to reimburse P82,785.97 plus interest and attorney's fees awarded in another case against the plaintiffs, with costs. Procedural History: Shell appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 50233-R), which affirmed the trial court's decision with modifications to the damages and attorney's fees. Shell then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 56343), which was denied due to tardiness and the Court's inclination not to disturb the CA's rulings on factual issues and technical errors. The CA was allowed to enter final judgment. Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued by the trial court, and Shell's properties were levied and sold at public auction to Sastre. Shell filed the instant petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, praying to annul the writ of execution and its implementation, arguing that the award of P624,042.23 for overpayment was void as it was neither alleged nor proven. The Petition: The present petition seeks to annul the writ of execution issued by the respondent court and to enjoin its implementation, arguing that the award for overpayment was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court as it was not alleged in the amended complaint nor proven in evidence. Petitioner also argues that the dismissal of its prior petition for review (G.R. No. 56343) does not preclude the present petition for certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the writ of execution for the amount of P624,042.23, representing supposed overpayment. Whether the claim for overpayment was sufficiently alleged in the amended complaint and proven during the trial. Whether the dismissal of the prior petition for review (G.R. No. 56343) bars the present petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus on the ground of res judicata.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The temporary restraining order is lifted. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the award for overpayment: The Court held that the issues raised by the petitioner in the present petition are the same issues it raised in its prior petition for review in G.R. No. 56343. These issues, including the overpayment claim, were already passed upon and resolved by the Supreme Court in its resolution dated December 16, 1981, which became final and executory on April 26, 1982. The Court reiterated that execution is the fruit and end of the law, and once a judgment has become final and executory, it cannot be recalled to practically change its terms. The principle of res judicata applies, preventing the relitigation of issues that have been definitively settled. On whether the claim for overpayment was sufficiently alleged and proven: The Court found that the issue of overpayment was considered by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The amended complaint, in paragraph 7, stated that plaintiffs demanded "such sum of money due to the plaintiffs, and to render the necessary and accurate accounting of the amount of the commission deposited by plaintiffs with the defendant." Furthermore, the issue was tried by the express or implied consent of the parties, as evidenced by the presentation of checks (Exhibits K, K-1 to K-101) and the admission by petitioner's counsel regarding the genuineness and due execution of these checks. The Court noted that it would be unusual to present such a number of exhibits purportedly involving a large sum to prove only a much smaller amount, indicating that the purpose was indeed to establish the overpayment. The trial court and the Court of Appeals were in the best position to determine the purpose of the evidence. On the applicability of res judicata: The Court emphasized that every litigation must come to an end, and there must be a limit to access to the courts. Since the petitioner's right had been adjudicated in a valid final judgment in G.R. No. 56343, it should not be granted an unbridled license to relitigate the same issues. The prevailing party ought not to be harassed by subsequent suits. The Court found no cogent reason to apply any exceptions to the rule of res judicata, concluding that the dismissal of the petition in G.R. No. 56343 should have ended the controversy.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus seeking to annul a writ of execution and its implementation will be dismissed if the issues raised have already been passed upon and resolved in a prior petition for review on certiorari that has become final and executory, invoking the principle of res judicata and the finality of judgments.