Goking v. Villaraza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Santiago Goking mortgaged his property to Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. to secure an obligation of Three G Distributors, Inc. Petitioner entered into an indemnity agreement with Aggregated Underwriters Corporation, acting as general agent for People's Trans-East Asia Insurance Corporation (People's), for the issuance of surety bonds for the directors of Three G. Petitioner paid P76,222.93 in premiums for these bonds. People's failed to honor the agreement and return the premiums, leading to the foreclosure of petitioner's mortgaged property. The case against Firestone was settled, leaving People's as the sole defendant. Petitioner also filed a separate case (Civil Case No. 9114) against the agents of People's for the refund of the premiums paid. Procedural History: In Civil Case No. 9114, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the agents of People's to refund the P76,222.93 in premiums, plus damages and attorney's fees. This decision became final and executory. In the present case (Civil Case No. 9800), the RTC ordered People's to issue the surety bonds or refund the premiums, along with litigation expenses and attorney's fees. People's appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decision except for the order for People's to pay damages solidarily. Petitioner then sought to have the CA decision modified to explicitly order People's to refund the premiums, but the CA denied this, stating it had lost jurisdiction. Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Execution in the RTC, again seeking the direct refund of the premiums. The RTC, through respondent Judge Rolando R. Villaraza, denied this motion, ruling that the trial court could not alter the CA's modified decision and that the premium refund was already awarded in Civil Case No. 9114. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's Order denying his Motion for Execution. Petitioner argued that the RTC's denial, which prevented him from collecting the P76,222.93 premium refund directly from People's, constituted grave abuse of discretion. He contended that the RTC should have ordered People's to pay the refund, as he believed this was the proper recourse to recover the premiums paid, despite the existence of a final and executory judgment in a separate case (Civil Case No. 9114) ordering the agents of People's to make such a refund.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for execution which sought to modify the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 9800 by ordering People's Trans-East Asia Insurance Corporation to directly refund the premium payments.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition, upholding the trial court's order. The Court ruled that petitioner's insistence on being paid the premium refund by People's in Civil Case No. 9800 was misplaced, as the refund was already awarded and became final and executory in Civil Case No. 9114 against the agents of People's. The trial court correctly denied the motion for execution because the decision in Civil Case No. 9800 did not order People's to pay the premium refund directly, but rather to issue surety bonds or refund the premiums if not yet refunded by the defendants in Civil Case No. 9114.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for execution. The Court emphasized the fundamental principle that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it attains immutability and can no longer be altered, modified, or reversed. The decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 9800, as modified by the Court of Appeals, clearly specified that People's Trans-East Asia Insurance Corporation was ordered "to issue approved surety bonds in compliance with the commitment of its authorized agent in case the premium in the amount of P76,222.93 is not yet refunded to the [petitioner]". It did not directly order People's to refund the premium payment. Petitioner's attempt to compel the trial court to order a direct refund from People's constituted a substantial modification of a final and executory judgment, which is prohibited. A trial court has no authority to change, amplify, enlarge, alter, or modify the decision of the Court of Appeals, as reinforced by established jurisprudence such as Macapantao v. Guinoo and Mangayao v. De Guzman. Petitioner's proper recourse for the premium refund was to execute the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 9114, which explicitly ordered Roque Villadores, Rodolfo Esculto, and Federico Garcia, Jr. to pay the P76,222.93 premium refund. The Court found that Goking was seeking remedy from the wrong court in attempting to enforce the premium refund in Civil Case No. 9800, which had a different directive.
Main Doctrine
A trial court cannot modify or alter a decision of the Court of Appeals that has become final and executory. A party seeking to enforce a refund awarded in a separate, final, and executory judgment must pursue execution in the case where the award was made, not in a different case.