Verches v. Rios
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Rafael Verches filed an action against defendant Elena Rios to recover P2,400, alleging fraud in a real estate deal. Defendant denied the allegations and counterclaimed for P1,000 plus P400 for attorney's fees, and P10,000 for damages due to a wrongful writ of attachment. Procedural History: The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for P1,000 and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim and cross-complaint. Both parties appealed. The plaintiff's appeal was perfected, but the defendant's appeal was dismissed. The Petition: After the defendant's appeal was dismissed, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to issue an execution on his P1,000 judgment. This motion was granted, and an execution was issued. The defendant paid P1,000 to the plaintiff, who issued a receipt. Subsequently, the check used for payment was dishonored, but the actual money was paid to the plaintiff, who accepted it and returned the check. Based on these facts, the defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff-appellant, having collected the full amount of the judgment in his favor through execution, can still prosecute an appeal on the ground that the awarded amount was insufficient. Whether the act of collecting the judgment constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal.
Ruling
The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained. The plaintiff-appellant is deemed to have waived his right to appeal by collecting the full satisfaction of the judgment through execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the plaintiff-appellant can still prosecute an appeal after collecting the judgment: The Court held that a party who has recovered a judgment upon a claim which is indivisible, and has, after its rendition, coerced by execution, full satisfaction, cannot maintain an appeal against the objections of the judgment debtor on the ground that the recovery was insufficient. The plaintiff's cause of action was found to be indivisible. By applying for and obtaining leave to issue an execution on his judgment for P1,000, and subsequently collecting that amount, the plaintiff has achieved full satisfaction of the judgment. This act of collecting the judgment, through coercion by execution, is inconsistent with the prosecution of an appeal from that same judgment. The Court cited numerous authorities establishing the principle that a party cannot accept the fruits of a judgment and simultaneously appeal from it, as these rights are mutually exclusive. The plaintiff's election to collect the judgment ratified it and estopped him from prosecuting an appeal that claimed the judgment was erroneous and should have been for a larger sum. On the issue of whether the act of collecting the judgment constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal: The Court affirmed that having elected to collect his judgment, the appellant ratified it and should be estopped from prosecuting the appeal. The act of collecting the judgment, especially through a writ of execution initiated by the appellant himself, signifies an acceptance of the judgment's validity to that extent. This acceptance is inconsistent with the claim that the judgment is erroneous and should be reviewed for a potentially larger award. The Court emphasized that the right to accept the fruits of a judgment and the right of appeal are not concurrent but are totally inconsistent. An election to take one course is a renunciation of the other. Therefore, by collecting the P1,000 judgment, the plaintiff waived his right to appeal.
Main Doctrine
A party who has recovered a judgment upon a claim which is indivisible, and has, after its rendition, coerced by execution, full satisfaction, cannot maintain an appeal in this court, against the objections of the judgment debtor upon the ground that he has not recovered enough. Having elected to collect his judgment, the appellant ratified it and should be estopped from prosecuting the appeal as inconsistent with his collection of the amount adjudged to him.