Case Digest (G.R. No. 83693)
Facts:
The case involves Leandro Alazas as the petitioner and Hon. Bernardo Ll. Salas, the Presiding Judge of Branch 8 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, along with Rosario Mercader as the respondents. The events leading to this case began with an action for damages due to libel filed by Rosario Mercader against Leandro Alazas and Dioscoro Lazaro in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. On November 4, 1982, the court rendered a decision ordering the defendants to pay Mercader a total of P200,000.00 in moral damages, P10,000.00 in attorney's fees, P5,000.00 in litigation expenses, and costs. Following an appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court, the decision was modified, dismissing the case against Dioscoro Lazaro but affirming the ruling against Alazas, with costs imposed on him. The case was subsequently elevated to the Supreme Court, which, on September 28, 1987, reduced the moral damages to P50,000.00.
On March 7, 1988, Mercader filed a motion for the execution of the fin...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 83693)
Facts:
Initial Judgment and Appeal:
- Rosario Mercader filed a libel case against Leandro Alazas and Dioscoro Lazaro in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu.
- On November 4, 1982, the RTC ordered Alazas and Lazaro to pay Mercader P200,000.00 in moral damages, P10,000.00 in attorney’s fees, P5,000.00 in litigation expenses, and costs.
- On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court dismissed the case against Lazaro but affirmed the decision against Alazas.
- The Supreme Court later reduced the moral damages to P50,000.00 in a resolution dated September 28, 1987.
Execution of Judgment:
- On March 7, 1988, Mercader moved for the execution of the final judgment.
- The deputy provincial sheriff garnished Alazas’ shares in Gala Inc. on March 16, 1988.
- Marilou Valmores, cashier of Gala Inc., informed the sheriff that Alazas only owned one share worth P100.00 as of October 17, 1982.
- Despite this, the sheriff proceeded with the public auction of Alazas’ shares.
Public Auction and Sale:
- On March 29, 1988, Mercader bid P47,400.00 for 1,580 shares of Alazas in Gala Inc. and was awarded the shares.
- A certificate of sale was issued on March 30, 1988, in partial satisfaction of the judgment.
- On April 4, 1988, Gloria Alazas, corporate secretary of Gala Inc., informed the sheriff that Alazas had only one share, having disposed of his 1,580 shares.
Second Levy and Auction:
- On April 6, 1988, a second notice of levy and execution was issued based on records showing Alazas had 16,000 unissued shares in Gala Inc.
- A second public auction was held on April 14, 1988, where Mercader bid P24,090.00 for 803 shares.
- A certificate of sale was issued on April 15, 1988.
Mercader’s Claims and Examination Motion:
- On May 6, 1988, Mercader informed Gala Inc. that she had acquired sufficient shares to become a majority stockholder.
- On May 24, 1988, Mercader filed a motion for the examination of Alazas under Section 39 of Rule 39, alleging that Alazas had concealed his properties.
- The trial court granted the motion and scheduled the examination for May 30, 1988, which was later rescheduled to June 6, 1988.
Alazas’ Motion for Reconsideration:
- Alazas filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court had lost jurisdiction after the judgment was fully satisfied.
- The trial court denied the motion on June 6, 1988, and reset the examination for June 20, 1988.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition:
- Alazas filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to restrain the trial court from conducting the examination.
- The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on June 29, 1988, halting the trial court’s proceedings.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Jurisdiction of the Trial Court:
- While a trial court’s jurisdiction becomes ministerial after a judgment becomes final and executory, it retains the authority to ensure the full satisfaction of the judgment.
- The examination of a judgment debtor under Section 39 of Rule 39 is a legitimate process to determine if there are hidden or concealed properties that can satisfy the judgment.
Satisfaction of Judgment:
- The repeated representations by Gala Inc.’s officers that Alazas owned only one share worth P100.00 cast doubt on whether the judgment had been fully satisfied.
- The trial court’s order for examination was justified to verify if Alazas had other properties or credits that could satisfy the judgment.
Clerical Error:
- The trial court’s reference to “Gala Enterprises” instead of “Gala Inc.” was a clerical error that did not affect the validity of its orders.
Evasion of Judgment:
- The Court noted that Alazas’ claim of having sold his shares could be a ruse to evade the execution of the judgment.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction in ordering the examination of Alazas as a judgment debtor. The petition was dismissed, and the temporary restraining order was lifted.