TomacruzA-Lactao v. Espejo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Jannah Ann Espejo, along with four others, was tried for estafa. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted the accused but ordered respondent and a co-accused to render an accounting of P1,015,000.00 investment and to jointly and severally pay the petitioner such sums as they might fail to account for or for damages caused by their non-performance as agents. 2. Procedural History: The RTC found respondent's initial accounting non-compliant and ordered a revised accounting within fifteen days. Respondent's motion for a subpoena duces tecum/ad testificandum to obtain bank records for compliance was denied, and the RTC ordered the issuance of a writ of execution for the civil judgment. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) granted respondent's petition for certiorari, declaring the RTC's orders null and void as they granted execution of a judgment that had not yet become final and executory. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to set aside the CA's decision and resolution. Petitioner argues that the RTC's August 27, 1997 decision, specifically its civil aspect, became final and executory upon respondent's failure to render a timely accounting, making the writ of execution a ministerial duty. The Supreme Court, however, found the civil aspect of the RTC's decision to be interlocutory, as it required further proceedings to determine liability and the amount thereof, and thus was not yet final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC's August 27, 1997 Decision, with respect to its civil aspect, became final and executory upon respondent's failure to render a timely accounting. Whether the RTC's December 8, 1997 Order, which declared respondent and her co-accused liable for P1,015,000.00, was a final and executory judgment subject to immediate execution. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the RTC orders null and void.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The challenged February 29, 2000 Decision and August 8, 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the finality and executory nature of the RTC's August 27, 1997 Decision: The Supreme Court held that while the August 27, 1997 Decision was final and executory as to its criminal aspect, its civil aspect was interlocutory. The Court distinguished between a final order, which disposes of the entire case leaving nothing more to be done but enforcement, and an interlocutory order, which leaves substantial proceedings yet to be had. The test applied was whether the order left something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case. In this instance, the RTC's decision merely ordered respondent to render an accounting and to pay sums that might not be accounted for or damages, indicating that further adjudication was necessary to determine liability and the amount thereof. Therefore, the civil aspect was not yet final and executory. On the nature of the RTC's December 8, 1997 Order: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the December 8, 1997 Order, while it declared respondent and her co-accused liable for P1,015,000.00 due to their alleged failure to account, was not yet final and executory. The Court reiterated that only final orders, which finally dispose of a case, can become final and executory. Interlocutory orders, which resolve incidental matters without ending the case, never become final and impervious to impugnation after the period for appeal from a final judgment has expired. Thus, the RTC's declaration of liability in the December 8, 1997 Order was still subject to appeal. On the CA's finding of grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. The CA correctly ruled that the RTC's granting of a writ of execution without the civil aspect of the judgment having become final and executory, and without affording respondent an opportunity to appeal the final declaration of liability, constituted a denial of due process. The Court emphasized that the issuance of a writ of execution is ministerial only when the judgment is final and executory. Since the civil aspect was interlocutory, the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering execution prematurely.
Main Doctrine
An order that leaves substantial proceedings yet to be had in connection with the merits of the case is interlocutory and does not become final and executory, thus, it is not subject to appeal. The issuance of a writ of execution is only ministerial when the judgment is final and executory.