Case Summary (G.R. No. 211969)
Factual Background
During LSI’s excavation in 2000, the concrete retaining wall of OMM encroached on LSI’s land. LSI demanded removal and, after MFEPI’s partial but incomplete demolition, hired its own contractor at a cost of ₱3,980,468.50. MFEPI refused payment, prompting LSI’s 2005 complaint for demolition cost, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Procedural History
– RTC (2005): Held MFEPI liable for demolition cost plus interest, damages (₱1 million), attorney’s fees (₱500,000), and costs.
– CA (2006): Affirmed RTC but deleted compensatory damages.
– SC (2008–2009): Denied reconsideration; judgment became final and executory.
– Execution (2009–2010): Writ of execution issued; service attempts at Makati and Mandaluyong failed due to corporate misidentification in SEC filings.
– Urgent Motion (2010): LSI sought examination of MFEPI’s officers before Pasig RTC to identify assets.
– RTC Order (2011): Denied motion for lack of territorial jurisdiction and citing separate corporate personality.
– CA Decision (2013) & Resolution (2014): Dismissed LSI’s certiorari petition, upholding RTC.
Issue
Can the RTC that rendered the final judgment compel MFEPI’s officers—found outside its territorial jurisdiction—to undergo examination for purposes of executing the judgment?
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution
– Rule 65, Section 1(c) (certiorari for lack/excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse)
– Rule 39, Section 36 (examination of judgment obligor within territorial jurisdiction)
– Rule 135, Section 5 (inherent power to amend and control process)
– Doctrine of separate juridical personality
Supreme Court Analysis – Certiorari Standard
A petition for certiorari is limited to cases of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse entails a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to jurisdictional failure.
Supreme Court Analysis – Supervisory Control and Execution Remedies
- The court that rendered judgment retains supervisory control over its execution, including authority to issue auxiliary writs and adopt processes necessary for enforcement.
- Final and executory decisions are immutable except for clerical corrections, void judgments, or supervening events that render execution unjust.
- When a writ of execution is returned unsatisfied, the judgment court must order examination of the judgment obligor to identify assets for satisfaction of the judgment.
- Rule 135, Section 5 empowers the court to amend and control its processes to conform to law and justice, including compelling
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 211969)
Antecedent Facts
- Petitioner Linden Suites, Inc. discovered respondent’s concrete retaining wall encroaching on its property during excavation for the Linden Suites project in Ortigas, Pasig City.
- Respondent Meridien Far East Properties, Inc. initially removed part of the encroachment but failed to complete demolition.
- Petitioner hired its own contractor to finish the work and incurred additional costs of PHP 3,980,468.50, which respondent refused to pay.
- On November 18, 2005, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 69023 for damages before RTC Branch 70, Pasig City, seeking recovery of demolition costs and other reliefs.
RTC Decision and First Appeal
- RTC Branch 70 rendered judgment on November 18, 2005, ordering respondent to pay:
• PHP 3,980,468.50 plus legal interest from August 21, 2000;
• PHP 1,000,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages;
• PHP 500,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and
• Costs of suit. - On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the award of actual and compensatory damages.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the CA ruling via Resolution dated August 27, 2008; respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied and an Entry of Judgment was issued on January 23, 2009.
Execution Proceedings
- Petitioner secured a writ of execution from the RTC on August 6, 2009.
- Sheriff Marco A. Boco attempted service at respondent’s Makati City office on April 5 and 14, 2010, but failed.
- Petitioner then directed service to respondent’s registered address in Mandaluyong City (per its 2006 GIS filed with the SEC).
- On June 3, 2010, the sheriff found that the Mandaluyong office belonged to a different corporation (MDGI) and returned the writ unserved on June 18, 2010.
Urgent Motion to Examine Judgment Obligor
- Petitioner noted that respondent’s 2006 GIS and MERDC’s 2009 GIS listed identical officers and similar shareholders and addresses.
- On November 8, 2010