Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81121:gr-192532-2013&catid=1566&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:04:19+00:00

Document:
SPOUSES RICARDO AND ELENA GOLEZ, Petitioners, v.SPOUSES CARLOS AND AMELITA NAVARRO, Respondent.
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the Orders dated December 21, 20091 and May 17, 20102 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23.
On October 5, 1993, Spouses Ricardo and Elena Golez (herein petitioners), entered into a written agreement3 with respondent Amelita Navarro (Amelita), a real estate dealer, appointing her as their exclusive agent in the sale of their property in Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, which has an area of 1,100 square meters, more or less, and worth six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00). They likewise agreed that if the price of the sale exceeds P600,000.00, Amelita will be given a commission equivalent to 90% of the amount in excess thereof.
Amelita found an interested buyer, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). No sale between them, however, transpired because they couldnt agree on the selling price of P1,200,000.00.4 Upon knowing this fact, the petitioners took over and continued negotiations with the Mormons representatives in Manila.
On November 9, 1994, the petitioners successfully sold their property to the Mormons for the amount of P800,000.00. The sale included other lots owned by the petitioners and the total purchase price amounted to P1,300,000.00. Amelita was neither notified of the sale nor was she given any commission.5 Hence, upon discovery of the transaction, she asserted her right to be paid her commission but the petitioners sternly refused. Because of this, Amelita brought the matter to the Office of the Barangay Captain of Molave. However, no amicable settlement took place between her and the petitioners.
On March 7, 1995, Amelita, together with her husband Carlos, (herein respondents) instituted a complaint6 for collection of sum of money, breach of contract and damages against the petitioners with the RTC of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23. The petitioners filed their Answer,7 denying any liability. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
3. To pay the costs of this action.
In its other aspects, the appealed decision shall remain undisturbed.
The petitioners elevated the matter to the Court via petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 178648.12 The Court in its Resolution13 dated September 22, 2008, denied the petition for "failure of petitioners to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of the Courts discretionary appellate jurisdiction. Besides, the issues raised in the said petition are merely factual in nature."14 The motion for reconsideration thereof was likewise denied with finality on February 23, 2009;15 thus the resolution of the Court became final and executory.
WHEREFORE, finding the MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION being ministerial on the part of this Court, the Decision having become final and executory and in accordance with the Decision of the Court of Appeals in relation to the other aspects of the Decision of this Court, the same is GRANTED. Let an ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION be issued ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the total amount of Five Hundred Four Thousand Pesos (P504,000.00).
Let also a WRIT OF ATTACHMENT be issued against the estate of the defendants, real or personal, to secure the payment of the judgment sum.
The petitioners moved for reconsideration,28 mainly contending that the terms of the order and the alias writ of execution "varied the law of the case" and awarded more than what the CAs judgment decreed.
The petitioners contend that the order of execution issued by the RTC does not conform to the terms of the dispositive portion of the CA decision, hence, invalid. The imposition of a 12% interest on the award from the sale of defendants property to the Mormons Church on November 9, 1994 until the same is fully paid to the plaintiffs is not ordered in the CA judgment and the RTC committed an error in including it in its order.
The main issue in this case is whether the assailed order of execution dated December 21, 2009 and alias writ of execution dated May 17, 2010 varied the terms of the final and executory CA Decision dated September 29, 2006. Prior to resolving this issue, however, the Court shall first address the respondents procedural objection.
In the present case, the Court finds meritorious grounds to admit the petition and absolve the petitioners from their procedural lapse.
"When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The order of execution dated December 21, 2009 and the alias writ of execution dated May 17, 2010 issued by the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23, are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.
The Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23, is hereby ORDERED to issue an alias writ of execution ordering Spouses Ricardo and Elena Golez to pay, jointly and severally, to Spouses Carlos and Amelita Navarro the amount of one hundred eighty thousand pesos (P180,000.00) representing the commission for the sale of appellants' properties subject of the contract of agency with 12% interest from finality of judgment on February 28, 2009 until fully paid.
10 Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Romilo V. Borja and Mario V. Lopez, concurring; id. at 54-71.
15 Id. at 82 and 100.
33 Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (ARBA) v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 168394, October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 540, 550.
34 Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Lee, G.R. No. 190144, August 1, 2012; Bermudo v. Tayag-Roxas, G.R. No. 172879, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 423, 427; Diamond Builders Conglomeration v. Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 171820, December 13, 2007, 540 SCRA 194, 211; Siy v. NLRC, 505 Phil. 265, 275 (2005).
35 Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) v. Aumentado, Jr., G.R. No. 173634, July 22, 2010, 625 SCRA 241, 248, citing Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) v. Judge Borreta, 519 Phil. 637, 643 (2006).
36 G.R. No. 107404, March 30, 1994, 231 SCRA 620.
39 Anama v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 187021, January 25, 2012, 664 SCRA 293, 303.
40 Solidbank Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 428 Phil. 949, 957-958 (2002), citing Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103590, January 29, 1993, 218 SCRA 233, 250.
44 Id. at 960, citing Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, supra note 40.
45 General Milling Corporation-Independent Labor Union (GMC-ILU) v. General Milling Corporation, G.R. Nos. 183122 and 183889, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 235, 253.
46 G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78.

References: V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.