G.R. No. L-49188 - Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-49188)

Key Dates

Original Complaint Filed: November 8, 1967
Trial Court Judgment: June 29, 1972
CA Decision: February 3, 1977 (affirmed with modification)
Finality and Remand for Execution: May 31, 1977
First Writ Issued: October 11, 1977
Alias Writ Application: February 11, 1978 and substitute motion on April 19, 1978
Alias Writ Issued: May 1, 1978
Garnishment Executed: May 26, 1978
SC Decision: January 30, 1990

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 jurisprudential context)
Rules of Court, Rule 39 on execution of money judgments
Civil Code of the Philippines, Articles 1240, 1249 on payment

Procedural and Factual Background

Amelia Tan sued PAL for contractual and moral damages. After judgment in her favor by the trial court and modification by the Court of Appeals, the award (P25,000 actual damages plus P5,000 attorney’s fees with legal interest) became final and executory in May 1977. A writ of execution was issued and referred to Sheriff Emilio Reyes, who absconded after collecting payment. Tan then sought and obtained from the trial court an alias writ of execution, which led PAL to file this certiorari petition.

Issues Presented

Whether an alias writ of execution may issue absent a prior return of the original writ.
Whether payment made by PAL to the absconding sheriff by checks drawn in his name satisfied the judgment debt.

Return Requirement for Alias Writ

The Court held that where an executing officer has absconded and cannot make a return, strict insistence on the formal return requirement would render enforcement of a judgment “illusory.” Under Rule 39, the trial court may dispense with the return if it is impossible to obtain, thereby preventing indefinite frustration of a final award.

Nature of Execution vs. Satisfaction

Execution is the process by which a decree is carried into effect; satisfaction is the extinguishment of the debt through payment or sale of property. Rule 39, Section 15 imposes on the officer the duty to levy and deliver proceeds, but the absence of a return does not preclude issuance of an alias writ when execution remains incomplete.

Validity of Payment by Checks to Sheriff

Payment to the person in whose favor an obligation is constituted—or an authorized agent—discharges the debt (Art. 1240). However, negotiable instruments are mere substitutes for money and only extinguish obligations upon actual realization (Art. 1249). PAL’s checks were neither legal tender nor made payable to Tan; they required encashment, which depended on the sheriff’s integrity.

Judgment Debtor’s and Officer’s Duties

A judgment debtor must ensure payment is made to the proper payee; issuing checks to the sheriff contravened established practice and enabled misappropriation. An officer authorized to accept payment must in turn deliver the proceeds to the judgment creditor. Failure to do so renders the officer—and not the debtor—liable for conversion, but does not revive the debtor’s obligation once actual payment in fact occurred.

Practical Safeguards and Policy Considerations

While cash payments to