Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50739:gr-176533-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:35:37+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 176533 - JEROME SOLCO v. CLAUDINA V. PROVIDO, ET AL.
JEROME SOLCO, Petitioner, v. CLAUDINA V. PROVIDO and MARIA TERESA P. VILLARUEL, Respondents.
This Petition for Review on Certiorariassails the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 01561, dated July 26, 2006, which reversed the November 23, 2005, January 19, 2006 and February 17, 2006 Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 47, for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, as well as the Resolution,2 dated January 23, 2007, denying the motion for reconsideration.
On April 13, 1989, Josefa PeÃ±a vda. de Villaruel, Claudina V. Provido, Antonio P. Villaruel, Carmen P. Villaruel, Maria Teresa P. Villaruel, Rosario P. Villaruel, Jesusa P. Villaruel, Alfredo P. Villaruel, Jr., and Josefina Villaruel-Laudico,3 through their attorney-in-fact respondent Maria Teresa P. Villaruel, executed a Contract to Sell and Memorandum of Agreement with petitioner Jerome Solco over Lot No. 1454-C located at Mandalagan, Bacolod City and covered by TCT No. T-84855 for P3M. The agreement provided for the payment of P1.6M upon the signing of the contract, and the balance of P1.4M upon the dismantling of the structures thereon and the clearing of the premises of its occupants within six (6) months from the execution of the contract.4 Thereafter, Solco entered the premises and commenced the construction of the improvements.
10. Ordering the herein award of damages in favor of defendant as a first lien on the judgment for the non-payment of the necessary filing or docketing fees of defendant's counterclaim.
2. The award of moral damages and attorney's fees is reduced to P30,000.00 and P20,000.00, respectively.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us GRANTING the petition filed in this case. The assailed Orders dated November 23, 2005, January 19, 2006 and February 17, 2006 are hereby ANNULED and SET ASIDE.
1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN CA-G.R. CEB SP NO. 01561 IN CONNECTION WITH THE MONEY JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE NO. 5626.
The issue for resolution is whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Order of the RTC dated November 23, 2005 accepting the MBTC check as full payment of the contract price; the Order dated January 19, 2006 denying the motion to quash the writ of execution; and the Order dated February 17, 2006 denying the motion for reconsideration, on the ground that they were issued in grave abuse of discretion.
In the instant case, the Villaruels moved to quash the writ of execution because it allegedly varied the terms of the judgment. They claimed that the writ directed the sheriff to execute the decision only as against them, contrary to the dispostive portion of the decision which likewise ordered Solco to pay the balance of the purchase price. This contention is untenable. Although the portion of the decision ordering Solco to pay the balance of the contract price was not categorically expressed in the dispositive portion of the writ of execution, the same was explicitly reiterated in the body of the writ. Villaruels' remedy was not to move for the quashal of the writ of execution but to move for its modification to include the portion of the decision which ordered Solco to pay the balance of the contract price.
2. Defendant Solco has not paid his filing and docketing fees on his counterclaim as ordered in Paragraph No. 10 of the Decision in CC 5626 dated March 29, 1996, subject of this Writ.
Clearly, the sheriff was not precluded from demanding full payment from Solco although there is no specific order in the dispositive portion of the writ of execution to that effect. Interestingly, we note that at one point, the Villaruels invoked the validity of the writ by asking the clerk of court "to cause the full implementation" of the writ since Solco "had failed to pay nor deposit before [the RTC] the amount of one million four hundred thousand pesos (P1.4M) less damages, in violation of said Writ of Execution." However, when Solco paid the balance of the purchase price in compliance with said writ, the Villaruels moved to have it quashed because it allegedly modified the judgment of the trial court. This ploy to frustrate the implementation of the writ cannot be countenanced. Thus, the RTC correctly denied the motion to quash the writ of execution and the motion for reconsideration thereof in the assailed Orders dated January 19, 2006 and February 17, 2006, respectively.
(a) Immediate payment on demand. - The officer shall enforce an execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay in cash, certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the latter, the amount of the judgment debt under proper receipt directly to the judgment obligee or his authorized representative if present at the time of payment. The lawful fees shall be handed under proper receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn over the said amount within the same day to the clerk of court of the court that issued the writ.
If the judgment obligee or his authorized representative is not present to receive payment, the judgment obligor shall deliver the aforesaid payment to the executing sheriff. The latter shall turn over all the amounts coming into his possession within the same day to the clerk of court of the court that issued the writ, or if the same is not practicable, deposit said amounts to a fiduciary account in the nearest government depository bank of the Regional Trial Court of the locality.
The clerk of said court shall thereafter arrange for the remittance of the deposit to the account of the court that issued the writ whose clerk of court shall then deliver said payment to the judgment obligee in satisfaction of the judgment. The excess, if any, shall be delivered to the judgment obligor while the lawful fees shall be retained by the clerk of court for disposition as provided by law. In no case shall the executing sheriff demand that any payment by check be made payable to him.
(b) Satisfaction by levy. - If the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of the obligation in cash, certified bank check or other mode of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee, the officer shall levy upon the properties of the judgment obligor of every kind and nature whatsoever which may be disposed of for value and not otherwise exempt from execution giving the latter the option to immediately choose which property or part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient to satisfy the judgment. If the judgment obligor does not exercise the option the officer shall first levy on the personal properties, if any, and then on the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient to answer for the judgment.
The sheriff shall sell only a sufficient portion of the personal or real property of the judgment obligor which has been levied upon.
When there is more property of the judgment obligor than is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees, he must sell only so much of the personal or real property as is sufficient to satisfy the judgment and lawful fees.
Real property, stocks, shares, debts, credits, and other personal property, or any interest in either real or personal property, may be levied upon in like manner and with like effects as under a writ of attachment.
The garnishee shall make a written report to the court within five (5) days from service of the notice of garnishment stating whether or not the judgment obligor has sufficient funds or credits to satisfy the amount of the judgment. If not, the report shall state how much funds or credits the garnishee holds for the judgment obligor. The garnished amount in cash, or certified bank check issued in the name of the judgment obligee, shall be delivered directly to the judgment obligee within ten (10) working days from service of notice on said garnishee requiring such delivery, except the lawful fees which shall be paid directly to the court.
In the event there are two or more garnishees holding deposits or credits sufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment obligor, if available, shall have the right to indicate the garnishee or garnishees who shall be required to deliver the amount due; otherwise, the choice shall be made by the judgment obligee.
The executing sheriff shall observe the same procedure under paragraph (a) with respect to delivery of payment to the judgment obligee.
In reversing the assailed Orders, the Court of Appeals held that the payment with the clerk of court of MBTC cashier's check representing the balance of the purchase price less the damages awarded did not comply with the foregoing rule as it was made payable to the clerk of court and not directly to the Villaruels.
Unquestionably, the RTC has a general supervisory control over its process of execution. This power carries with it the right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution,35 as well as the power to compel the Villaruels to accept the payment made pursuant to a validly issued writ of execution. As the prevailing party, Solco should not be deprived of the fruits of his rightful victory in the long-drawn legal battle by any ploy of the respondents. Courts must guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts frown upon any attempt to prolong them.
Under the foregoing rules, a sheriff is under obligation to enforce the execution of a money judgment by demanding from the judgment obligor the immediate payment directly to the judgment obligee or his representative of the full amount stated in the writ of execution and all lawful fees. However, if the judgment obligee or his representative is not present to receive the payment, the rules require the sheriff to receive the payment which he must turn over within the same day to the clerk of court. If it is not practicable to deliver the amount to the clerk of court within the same day, the sheriff shall deposit the amount in a fiduciary account with the nearest government depository bank. The clerk of court then delivers the amount to the judgment obligee in satisfaction of the judgment. If the judgment obligor cannot pay all or part of the obligation, the sheriff shall levy upon the properties of the judgment obligor.
Sheriff Garbanzos served the writ several times on Solco by demanding the immediate payment of the balance of the purchase price and made the corresponding reports to the trial court of the proceedings taken thereon. Considering that Solco's obligation to pay is conditioned upon the eviction of all adverse occupants and removal of all structures found in the subject property, he was justified in not paying the balance immediately after the May 18 and May 27, 2005 sheriff's demands because the billboard was not yet removed from the premises. In reciprocal obligations, only when a party has performed his part of the contract can he demand that the other party also fulfills his own obligation.38 Assuming all the obligations of the Villaruels were complied with on June 7, 2005, but Solco still failed to pay his obligation, sheriff Garbanzos should have levied the properties of the latter to satisfy the judgment as mandated by the Rules. He should not have waited until August 18, 2005 to institute the garnishment proceedings39 or after the Villaruels requested for the "full implementation" of the writ.
Nevertheless, this procedural lapse on the part of the sheriff should not affect the validity of the November 23, 2005 Order of the RTC accepting the MBTC check as full payment of the contract price which was based on the August 8, 2005 letter of the Villaruels to the clerk of court requesting for the full implementation of the writ.
Moreover, the fact that payment was made to the clerk of court is of no moment. Indeed, the Rules require that in case the judgment obligee or his representative is not present to receive the payment, the judgment obligor "shall deliver the aforesaid payment to the executing sheriff," who "shall turn over all the amounts coming into his possession within the same day to the clerk of court," who in turn shall deliver the amount to the judgment obligee or his representative in satisfaction of the judgment. However, it would be defeating the ends of justice to rigidly enforce the rules and to invalidate the acceptance of the payment made directly to the clerk of court just because it was not initially paid to the sheriff, who is duty bound to "turn over all the amounts coming into his possession" to the clerk of court. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, their strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must always be avoided.40 Besides, payment was made not immediately after the June 7, 2005 demand of the sheriff but after the Villaruels wrote the clerk of court on August 8, 2005 requesting for the full implementation of the writ. Considering that there was no chance for Solco to deliver the payment to the respondents or their representatives, or even to the sheriff, it was only logical for him to make the payment to the clerk of court who issued the writ of execution.
Consequently, upholding the validity of the assailed Orders, constitutes an absolute bar to Civil Case No. 05-12614 for cancellation of contract, quieting of title and damages, now pending before RTC of Bacolod City, Branch 49, filed by the respondents based on the alleged unjustified refusal of Solco to pay the balance of the purchase price. Otherwise, to allow the case to continue, any adverse judgment of the RTC would render the entire proceeding in the courts, not to say the efforts, expenses and time of the parties, ineffective and nugatory.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals reversing the Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 47 dated November 23, 2005, accepting the MBTC check as full payment of the contract price and ordering the Villaruels to execute the deed of absolute sale over the property; January 19, 2006 denying the motions to quash the writ of execution and to set aside the November 23, 2005 Order; and February 17, 2006 denying the motion for reconsideration, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The assailed Orders are REINSTATED and Civil Case No. 05-12614 pending before Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 49, is ordered DISMISSED.
1 Rollo, pp. 176-182. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dican and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Agustin S. Dizon.
8 Id. at 364-365; penned by Judge Edgar G. Garvilles.
27 Torres v. National Labor Relations Commission, 386 Phil. 513, 520 (2000).
28 RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 6.
29 Fideldia v. Songcuan, G.R. No. 151352, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 218, 230.
33 CA rollo, p. 240.
34 Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation v. Oriental Assurance Corporation, 439 Phil. 663, 674 (2002).
35 Ysmael v. Court of Appeals, 339 Phil. 361, 376 (1997).
36 Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1786, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 265, 274.
37 RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, Sec. 14.
38 BPI Investment Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 427 Phil. 350, 360 (2002).
39 CA rollo, p. 240.
40 Idolor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161028, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 396, 405.

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