Case Digest (G.R. No. 72746)
Facts:
The case involves Bernarda S. Canonizado as the petitioner and Hon. Regina Ordonez Benitez, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XLVII, Manila, along with Atty. Cesar R. Canonizado as the respondents. The events trace back to March 13, 1956, when Bernarda filed an action for support against her estranged husband, Cesar, in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila. The trial court initially granted support for their minor child, Christina, at P100.00 monthly but denied support for Bernarda, citing her employment status. Bernarda contested this decision, leading to a petition for certiorari, which resulted in a modification on September 30, 1960, granting both Bernarda and Christina P100.00 each monthly.
Subsequent legal battles ensued, including Cesar's attempt to restrain the sale of properties he claimed to have lost ownership of, which the trial court later declared as simulated conveyances. The court ordered the auction sale of these pr...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 72746)
Facts:
Marital Dispute and Initial Support Claim
- The petitioner, Bernarda S. Canonizado, and the private respondent, Atty. Cesar R. Canonizado, were married but later separated.
- On March 13, 1956, the petitioner filed an action for support against her estranged husband in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila.
- The trial court granted support for their minor child, Christina, at P100.00 monthly but denied support for the petitioner, citing her gainful employment.
Appeal and Modification of Support
- The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which on September 30, 1960, modified the trial court's decision, granting support for both the minor child and the petitioner at P100.00 monthly each.
Execution and Property Issues
- A writ of execution was issued, but the respondent filed an action to restrain the sale of certain properties, claiming loss of ownership.
- On February 23, 1963, the trial court declared the conveyance of these properties as simulated and ordered the sheriff to proceed with the auction sale.
- The decision became final after the respondent withdrew his appeal.
Alias Writ of Execution and Exemptions
- An alias writ of execution was issued on March 1, 1963, but was not fully satisfied due to an order exempting the respondent's law books and office equipment from levy.
Decision on Merits and Finality
- On September 9, 1964, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court awarded arrearages in support pendente lite to both the petitioner and her daughter, plus current monthly support for the daughter at P150.00 beginning October 1964.
- This decision was affirmed on appeal, with the modification that the petitioner also receive P100.00 monthly support beginning October 1964. The decision became final and executory on January 21, 1969.
Subsequent Writs and Compromise Agreements
- A writ of execution was issued on July 22, 1976, for the collection of P16,150.00 for Christina's support and P17,200.00 for the petitioner's arrearages.
- These amounts remained unpaid due to a series of compromise agreements for deferment and moratorium.
Petition for Mandamus and Contempt
- On April 4, 1977, the petitioner filed a motion for an alias writ of execution, which was denied by the respondent judge due to the lapse of more than five years.
- The petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court on November 21, 1978, seeking enforcement of the support in arrears.
- On July 5, 1982, another petition was filed, asking the respondent judge to act on the petitioner's motion for current support.
Supreme Court's Decision
- The Supreme Court dismissed the second petition (G.R. No. 60966) but granted the first petition (G.R. No. L-49315), ordering the issuance of an alias writ of execution for the support in arrears from 1956 to 1972.
- The Court noted that the respondent judge had delayed implementing the writ, possibly due to pending motions to terminate support and restrain levy on exempt properties.
Contempt and Final Orders
- The private respondent was fined P500.00 for contempt due to his failure to comply with the Court's orders and submit a memorandum on time.
- The respondent judge was directed to enforce the alias writ of execution and collect the arrearages in support.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Finality of Judgments: Once a decision becomes final and executory, it acquires the character of vested rights, and the court has a ministerial duty to enforce it.
- Ministerial vs. Discretionary Acts: While mandamus cannot control discretion, it can compel the performance of ministerial acts, such as the enforcement of a writ of execution.
- Contempt of Court: Failure to comply with court orders and deadlines constitutes contempt, warranting penalties.
- Interest on Judgments: Claims for legal interest must be raised during the proceedings and cannot be introduced after the judgment has become final.