Ordoñez v. Calvo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs Juana Ordoñez, et al. sued defendants Aquilino Calvo and Manuel de Bosch. The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan rendered a judgment on December 12, 1923, sentencing the defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiffs P3,765, representing the value of products not received during the agricultural years 1914-1915 and 1915-1916. Procedural History: Defendant Calvo appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 23251), which was dismissed on December 16, 1924, and the case remanded for execution. Upon remand, a writ of execution was issued. On April 18, 1925, Calvo filed a motion seeking to suspend execution against him and to have the sheriff first demand payment from his co-defendant, Manuel de Bosch, and his sureties, citing Section 451 of the Code of Civil Procedure and alleging that his liability should be subsidiary. The Petition: The motion was denied by the lower court for lack of jurisdiction. Calvo appealed this denial. The Supreme Court dismissed this second appeal. Calvo then filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the importance of the question raised regarding the interpretation of the judgment and his subsidiary liability.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to suspend the execution of a final judgment and to modify its terms based on a motion filed after the judgment became final. Whether the liability of Aquilino Calvo should be considered subsidiary to that of his co-defendant Manuel de Bosch, despite the judgment stating joint and several liability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration, upholding the dismissal of the appeal. The Court affirmed that the lower court correctly denied Calvo's motion as it lacked jurisdiction to modify a final judgment or interfere with its execution. The Supreme Court reiterated that execution may issue against either defendant for the full amount of the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction to modify a final judgment: The Court held that once a judgment has become final and has been remanded to the lower court for execution, the court is without jurisdiction to modify its terms or interfere with its execution. The appellant's contention that the judgment should be given a special interpretation, amounting to a modification of a final judgment, was deemed absurd and beyond the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the court below. This principle is well-established in jurisprudence, as seen in cases like Molina vs. De la Riva. On the issue of subsidiary liability: The Court found no basis for Calvo's claim that his liability should be subsidiary. The judgment explicitly stated that the defendants were jointly and severally liable. This means that execution could be levied against either of them for the entire amount of the judgment. The Court clarified that Section 451 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which Calvo invoked, pertains to the liability of a sheriff and his sureties when property of a stranger is attached, and does not alter the nature of a joint and several liability between co-defendants in a judgment. The Court also noted that if Calvo's liability stemmed from a wrongful attachment, he might have recourse through an indemnity bond.
Main Doctrine
A court loses jurisdiction to modify a judgment that has become final and is already under execution. A motion for reconsideration filed after a judgment has become final and executory, which seeks to alter the terms of the judgment or its execution, cannot be granted.