Ong Sit v. Piccio
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Ong Sit filed a civil complaint against Vicente Uy Abatayo for the recovery of P530 plus interest and costs. Abatayo filed a counterclaim for P6,000 in damages. The underlying dispute centers on a wrongful attachment of Abatayo's store and stock, valued at approximately P6,000, which were subsequently lost during the war, leading to the complete destruction of Abatayo's business. 2. Procedural History: The case originated in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. After initial pleadings, a hearing was scheduled for October 23, 1945, but the judge ordered that both parties and their counsel be personally notified due to a previous lack of notification to the plaintiff. On October 23, 1946, the judge dismissed Ong Sit's complaint for non-appearance despite proper notification. Abatayo then presented evidence for his counterclaim, and on November 21, 1946, a judgment was rendered ordering Ong Sit to pay Abatayo P5,470 (P6,000 less P530) plus costs. On December 24, 1946, the court ordered the execution of this judgment. Ong Sit filed a notice of appeal and a supersedeas bond on January 16, 1947. 3. The Petition: Ong Sit filed an original petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul or suspend the execution order issued by the respondent judge. Ong Sit argued that the judge abused his discretion in ordering execution without good cause, despite the pending appeal. Ong Sit also contended that he had strong grounds for appeal and no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. The petition was filed on February 3, 1947, after Ong Sit had already paid the judgment amount on February 5, 1947, and after a preliminary injunction was issued by the Supreme Court on February 11, 1947.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a manifest abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of the judgment before the appeal was perfected. Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to annul an order of execution that has already been consummated.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The order of execution is upheld, and the Supreme Court refused to issue a writ of certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abuse of discretion in ordering execution: The Court reiterated that under Rule 39, Section 2, a judge has the discretion to order execution before the expiration of the time to appeal, provided there are good reasons stated in a special order. The respondent judge's reasons, including the loss of the defendant's business due to the wrongful attachment and the defendant's filing of a bond, were deemed sufficient. The Court emphasized that the correctness of the factual and legal conclusions of the trial court are matters for appeal, not for a certiorari proceeding. The Court cited numerous precedents establishing that it will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by lower courts in ordering execution, especially when good reasons exist. On the propriety of certiorari and the consummated execution: The Court held that a writ of certiorari is not available to correct errors of procedure or erroneous conclusions of fact or law, nor to modify or inquire into the exercise of discretion by a lower court. It is only available in cases of lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, since the petitioner had already paid the judgment amount, the execution was consummated, rendering the prayer to suspend the order moot. The Court also noted that the petitioner had an adequate remedy at law through his appeal.
Main Doctrine
A writ of certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of procedure or to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, and will not be used to modify, direct, or inquire into the exercise of discretion by a lower court, especially when the execution of judgment has already been consummated.