Garcia-Codilla v. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint for a sum of money filed by Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp., Ltd. (HSBC) against Governor Gwendolyn Garcia-Codilla (Garcia), doing business as GGC Enterprises and GGC Shipping. Garcia availed of a credit facility from HSBC, which opened a Documentary Credit Line for USD 900,000.00 to finance GGC's purchase of a light cargo transit barge. Garcia executed security documents, including a Real Estate Mortgage and a Trust Receipt. However, Garcia and GGC failed to pay or reimburse HSBC for the installment payments made for the barge. Despite HSBC's demands and the application of Garcia's dollar time deposit to her outstanding obligations, the debt remained unpaid. By March 31, 2020, Garcia's outstanding debt, including interest, amounted to USD 720,000.00 plus USD 103,522.91 in interest. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 57, ruled in favor of HSBC, ordering Garcia and her husband to pay substantial damages and costs. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision but reduced the damages. This Court, in a Minute Resolution dated August 22, 2012 (G.R. No. 177734), denied Garcia's Petition for Review on Certiorari but modified the award of costs and the reckoning point for legal interest. This resolution became final and executory. Subsequently, HSBC filed a motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution, which the RTC granted. After attempts to serve the writ, HSBC filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution, which was also granted by the RTC. Garcia moved to quash this Alias Writ, arguing a violation of due process, but her motion was denied by the RTC. The CA affirmed the RTC's denial, holding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Garcia then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court. The Petition: Governor Gwendolyn Garcia-Codilla seeks review of the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution, arguing that the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in issuing the Alias Writ of Execution. Garcia contends that the Alias Writ should have stated the facts and law upon which it was based, citing Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution. She also argues that the Writ of Execution should have been served on GGC's official addresses, not her office at the Batasan, as she was not properly notified of the exact amount of her obligation and thus denied due process. Furthermore, she claims the motion for the Alias Writ was a litigious motion requiring notice and hearing, which she was not afforded. Garcia's petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Trial Court for issuing the Alias Writ of Execution; and whether the Alias Writ of Execution should have contained the facts and law on which it was based, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution. Whether the Writ of Execution should have been served on GGC Enterprises and GGC Shipping (GGC) instead of Garcia personally. Whether the service of the Writ of Execution and Notice of Demand to Pay was proper. Whether the motion for the Alias Writ of Execution was a litigious motion requiring notice and hearing; and on the remedy against an Alias Writ of Execution. On the immutability of judgment and avoidance of delay.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated June 30, 2020, and the Resolution dated January 7, 2021, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 159953 are affirmed. The case is remanded to the RTC for immediate execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Alias Writ of Execution and the alleged violation of due process: The Court reiterated that alias writs of execution are issued in lieu of an original writ that has lapsed and are governed by the same rules. Rule 39, Section 8 of the Rules of Court outlines the requirements for a Writ of Execution, which the Alias Writ in this case complied with. Crucially, the Court clarified that Rule 39, Section 8 does not require courts to specify the facts and law on which a writ or alias writ of execution is based. The constitutional requirement under Article VIII, Section 14, which mandates that decisions must clearly and distinctly state the facts and law, applies only to "decisions" on the merits, not to writs of execution which merely enforce a final and executory judgment. The facts and law are already laid out in the judgment being enforced. On the service of the Writ of Execution: The Court found no merit in Garcia's argument that the writ should have been served on GGC and not on her personally. Since GGC was a sole proprietorship registered under Garcia's name, it had no separate juridical personality from her. Therefore, Garcia, as the owner, was the proper party to be served. On the service of the Writ of Execution: Furthermore, the Court upheld the CA's finding that the service of the writ and notice was proper. After two failed attempts at personal service, the sheriffs left copies with Garcia's Protocol Officer and Head of Operations, which is considered valid service under the circumstances, especially given the prolonged period of non-payment. On the nature of the motion for Alias Writ of Execution: The Court affirmed that it is not mandatory to give Garcia the opportunity to oppose the Alias Writ of Execution or to participate in the calculation of the amounts therein. The prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution as a matter of right, and its issuance is a ministerial duty of the trial court. The absence of advance notice or a hearing for the motion for execution does not infringe upon due process. Consequently, a motion for an alias writ of execution, which is not a litigious motion, also does not require a hearing. The Court emphasized that final judgments should not be rendered illusory or incapable of execution due to dilatory tactics. The Court reiterated that the remedy against an improvidently issued writ or alias writ of execution is a motion to quash, but this is only available in exceptional circumstances, such as a change in the parties' situation making execution inequitable, or if the writ was issued against the wrong party, or if the judgment debt has been satisfied. Garcia failed to present any such exceptional circumstances. Her objection was merely to the "staggering amount" and not to any specific error in the calculation of the debt or interest. On the immutability of judgment and avoidance of delay: The Court stressed its vigilance against dilatory maneuvers that frustrate the enforcement of final and executory judgments. Allowing petitions for certiorari against writs of execution would abuse court processes, clog dockets, and impair the stability of the judicial system. The doctrine of immutability and unalterability of final judgments serves to avoid delay and put an end to controversies. The Court noted that it has been over ten years since the judgment became final and executory, and Garcia's petitions have caused undue delay.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of an alias writ of execution to enforce a final and executory judgment is a ministerial duty of the court, and the absence of advance notice or hearing to the judgment debtor does not constitute an infringement of due process. Such a motion is not a litigious motion, and the remedy against an improvidently issued writ is a motion to quash, available only in exceptional circumstances.