Golez v. Navarro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Ricardo and Elena Golez entered into a written agreement with Amelita Navarro, a real estate dealer, appointing her as their exclusive agent for the sale of their property in Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, with an area of 1,100 square meters and an initial worth of P600,000.00. The agreement stipulated that if the sale price exceeded P600,000.00, Amelita would receive a commission equivalent to 90% of the excess amount. Amelita found a potential buyer, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), but negotiations for a P1,200,000.00 sale failed due to price disagreement. The Golez spouses then took over negotiations and subsequently sold their property, along with other lots, to the Mormons for a total of P1,300,000.00. Amelita was not informed of this sale and did not receive any commission, leading her and her husband, Carlos, to file a complaint for collection of sum of money, breach of contract, and damages. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23, ruled in favor of the respondents (Spouses Navarro) in its October 28, 1998 Decision, ordering the petitioners (Spouses Golez) to pay P280,000.00 in commission, plus interest, moral damages, and attorney's fees. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC Decision on September 29, 2006, affirming Amelita's entitlement to commission but reducing the amount to P180,000.00 and deleting the awards for moral damages and attorney's fees. The Golez spouses' petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (SC) was denied in a Resolution dated September 22, 2008, which became final and executory after the denial of their motion for reconsideration on February 23, 2009. Consequently, the Navarros filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution with the RTC, which was granted. However, a dispute arose when the respondents sought an alias writ of execution, arguing that the initial writ of execution, which did not include the 12% interest from the date of sale, was deficient. The RTC, in an Order dated December 21, 2009, granted the motion and ordered the payment of P504,000.00, comprising the P180,000.00 commission and P324,000.00 in interest calculated from November 9, 1994. The RTC denied the Golez spouses' motion for reconsideration in an Order dated May 17, 2010. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to set aside the RTC Orders dated December 21, 2009, and May 17, 2010. The petitioners contend that the RTC gravely erred by ordering the payment of interest from the date of sale (November 9, 1994) when the CA's modified decision, which became final and executory, only awarded the principal commission of P180,000.00 and did not explicitly include such interest. They argue that the writ of execution varied the tenor of the final judgment by including an award not decreed by the CA. The respondents, in turn, seek the dismissal of the petition, asserting it is an erroneous and out-of-context remedy. The core issue is whether the RTC's order of execution and alias writ of execution varied the terms of the final and executory CA Decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC gravely erred in ordering the payment of interest from the date of sale when the CA decision did not decree such interest. Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail an order of execution that allegedly varies the judgment.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The order of execution dated December 21, 2009, and the alias writ of execution dated May 17, 2010, are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The RTC is ordered to issue an alias writ of execution for P180,000.00 with 12% interest from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the RTC order varied the CA decision and the imposition of interest: The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC gravely erred in ordering the payment of P504,000.00, which included 12% interest from the date of sale because the CA decision did not decree such interest. While the RTC erred in imposing interest from the date of sale, the Supreme Court clarified that the imposition of 12% interest is still warranted, but only from the finality of the judgment until satisfaction thereof. This is in line with the doctrine laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. The CA decision became final and executory on February 28, 2009, when the Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration with finality. Therefore, the alias writ of execution should order the payment of P180,000.00 with 12% interest computed from February 28, 2009, until fully paid. On the propriety of the remedy: While orders of execution are generally interlocutory and should be assailed via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the Supreme Court has consistently held that an appeal under Rule 45 is proper when the writ of execution varies the terms of the judgment. In this case, the RTC's order of execution allegedly varied the CA's judgment by including interest from the date of sale, which was not part of the CA's award. Therefore, the Court found merit in treating the petition for review on certiorari as the appropriate remedy to address the alleged variation. The Court emphasized that in the interest of equity and justice, it may interchangeably treat an appeal as a petition for certiorari and vice versa when warranted.
Main Doctrine
An order of execution that varies the tenor of a final and executory judgment is void. The trial court's ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution does not grant it the authority to modify or alter the terms of the judgment.