Facts:

The case involves Filipino Merchants' Insurance Co., Inc. (petitioner) and the spouses Alfredo Calaquian and Demetria Calaquian (respondents). The events leading to the case began in April 1978 when the Calaquians filed a complaint for damages against several parties, including the petitioner, following a vehicular accident that resulted in the death of their son, who was about to graduate with a degree in commerce from the University of the East. On April 26, 1984, the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch XLIII, ruled in favor of the Calaquians, ordering the petitioner to pay them P30,000.00, jointly and severally with other defendants, who were not part of this case. The other defendants were also ordered to pay the Calaquians a total of P28,000.00. After the decision became final and executory, the Calaquians filed an ex parte motion for execution on October 3, 1984, which was granted on October 9, 1984. A writ of execution was issued on December 3, 1...

Facts:

1. Background of the Case:

   • In April 1978, the private respondents, spouses Alfredo and Demetria Calaquian, filed a complaint for damages against several individuals and their insurer, Filipino Merchants' Insurance Co., Inc. (petitioner), following the death of their son in a vehicular accident.
   • On April 26, 1984, the trial court held the petitioner jointly and severally liable with the other defendants, ordering the petitioner to pay the Calaquians P30,000.00. The other defendants were ordered to pay P28,000.00.

2. Execution of Judgment:

   • No appeal was filed, and on October 3, 1984, the Calaquians moved for execution. The motion was granted, and a writ of execution was issued on December 3, 1984.
   • On January 28, 1985, the deputy sheriff levied on the petitioner's properties (four electric and six manual typewriters) and scheduled an auction sale for February 5, 1985.

3. Petition for Relief and Mandamus:

   • On February 4, 1985, the petitioner filed a petition for relief from judgment, claiming it only became aware of the trial court's decision due to the writ of execution. It also sought a preliminary injunction to stop the auction sale.
   • On February 6, 1985, the petitioner filed an urgent motion to recall the writ of execution.
   • On February 9, 1985, the petitioner initiated mandamus proceedings against Judge Capulong, alleging inaction on its petition for relief and motion to recall the writ.

4. Payment Under Protest:

   • On February 8, 1985, the petitioner issued a check for P30,000.00 to the Calaquians with the annotation "Payment Under Protest." The Calaquians initially refused the check due to the conditional annotation, but the petitioner later canceled the annotation, and the check was deposited and cleared.

5. Appellate Court Decision:

   • The Intermediate Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner's mandamus petition on June 20, 1985, and denied reconsideration on July 25, 1985.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Prematurity of Mandamus Petition:

   • The mandamus petition was filed only four days after the petition for relief from judgment, making it premature. The trial court could not reasonably be expected to act within such a short period.

2. Mootness of the Case:

   • The petitioner's payment of the judgment debt rendered the case moot and academic. The liability under the trial court's decision had been satisfied, and there was no longer any need to enjoin the execution.

3. Inapplicability of Sayman Case:

   • The case of Vda. de Sayman vs. Court of Appeals was inapplicable because the issue in that case was the propriety of the issuance of the writ of execution, whereas the issue here was the legality of its implementation.

4. Presumption of Regularity:

   • The trial court was presumed to have acted regularly in the performance of its duty, and the petitioner failed to provide clear and convincing proof to the contrary.

5. Impropriety of Certiorari:

   • The petitioner's attempt to convert the mandamus petition into a certiorari petition was improper, as the supervening circumstances introduced factual issues that could not be resolved in a special civil action for certiorari.