2. Execution as a Matter of Right vs. Matter of Discretion

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL; FOR PURPOSES OF EXECUTION

FOR PURPOSES OF EXECUTION:

Execution of a final and executory judgment is a matter of right. A judgment is final and executory when the law/rules do not provide for an appeal or the period to appeal has lapsed without an appeal being taken.

Final judgments distinguished from final and executory judgments

Judgments are “FINAL” in a sense that they finally dispose of, adjudicate, or determine the rights of the parties. But such judgments are not yet final and executory pending the period of appeal. During that period, execution of the judgment cannot be yet demanded by the winning party as a matter of right.

Judgments become “FINAL AND EXECUTORY” by operation of law. Finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal if no appeal is perfected. In such a situation, the prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution, and issuance thereof is a ministerial duty of the court. (Abrigo vs. Flores, G.R. No. 160786, 2013); (Feria and Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated, 2013 ed., vol. 2, p.127)

Updated: An applicable rehabilitation stay qualifies execution as a matter of right because it suspends all actions and phases of suits against the distressed corporation (Pacific Cement Company v. Oil, G.R. No. 229471, 11 July 2023).

Judgments and final orders which may be executed as a matter of right even BEFORE expiration of time to appeal:

(Note: Without need of advance notice or service of a motion for execution on defeated party)

• Judgment of lower court against defendant in forcible entry and unlawful detainer (where the defendant fails to post a supersedeas bond or deposit the rentals with the court, or where the appeal is from a decision of the regional trial court against the defendant).
• Judgment in action for injunction, receivership, accounting and support, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
• Award, judgment, final order, or resolution of quasi-judicial bodies appealable to the Court of Appeals. (Feria and Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated, 2013 ed., vol. 2, p. 127)

Section 1 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court does not prescribe that a copy of the motion for the execution of a final and executory judgment be served on the defeated party, like litigated motions such as a motion to dismiss (section 3, Rule 16), or motion for new trial (section 2, Rule 37), or a motion for execution of judgment pending appeal (section 2, Rule 39), in all of which instances a written notice thereof is required to be served by the movant on the adverse party in order to afford the latter an opportunity to resist the application.

Once the judgment has become final and executory, the prevailing party (judgment obligee) may, by motion, ask for the issuance of a writ execution of the judgment in the court of origin. (Far Eastern Surety vs. Vda. de Hernandez, G.R. No. L-30359, 1975)

The prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right, and the judgment debtor need not be given advance notice of the application for execution nor be afforded prior hearings thereon. (De Mesa vs. CA, G.R. No. 109387)

Elementary is the rule that every motion must contain the mandatory requirements of notice and hearing and that there must be proof of service thereof. The rule, however, is NOT ABSOLUTE. There are motions that can be acted upon by the court ex parte if these would not cause prejudice to the other party. They are not strictly covered by the rigid requirement of the rules on notice and hearing of motions. A motion for execution is such kind of motion. (Anama vs. CA, G.R. No. 187021, 2012)

The issuance of the writ of execution is the ministerial duty of the court. Thus, it is compellable by MANDAMUS.

Exceptions (When the Court May Refuse Execution):

• Where the judgment turns out to be incomplete or conditional;
• Judgment is novated by the parties (e.g. compromise);
• Change in the situation of the parties which would render execution of judgment unjust;
• Execution is enjoined (e.g., there is a preliminary injunction);
• Judgment has become dormant;
• Execution is unjust or impossible.

A compromise agreement, once approved by final order of the court, has the force of res judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery. Hence, a decision on a compromise agreement is final and executory and it has the force of law and is conclusive between the parties. It transcends its identity as a mere contract binding only upon the parties thereto as it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules of Court. (Sonley v. Anchor Savings Bank/Equicom Savings Bank, G.R. 205623, 2016)

Examples of GOOD REASONS:

That the appeal was being taken for the purpose of delay. (Presbitero v. Roxas 73 Phil. 300, 1941)

Where the education of the person to be supported would be unduly delayed. (Javier v. Lucero, et al. G.R. No. L-6706, 1953)

The insolvency of the judgment debtor. (Archinet International, Inc. v. Becco Philippines, Inc. G.R. No. 183753, 2009)

However, when there are several defendants and the co-defendant is not insolvent, insolvency of a defendant is not a good reason for execution. (Philippine National Bank v. Puno G.R. No. 76018, 1989)