Case Summary (G.R. No. 234636)
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
• February 21, 1997: RTC renders summary judgment in favor of Zabarte.
• August 31, 1999: CA affirms; judgment becomes final on July 16, 2001.
• September 4, 2002: RTC issues writ of execution.
• June 2004–April 2005: Partial sheriff’s returns.
• September 3, 2005: RTC grants amended writ.
• October 2005–2009: Petitioner’s motions to examine respondent and for alias writ; clarificatory hearings; case archived July 23, 2008.
• October 7, 2009: RTC purportedly denies revival and alias writ, then assigns new sheriff.
• October 19 & December 17, 2015: RTC issues Omnibus Orders terminating execution as time-barred.
• March 8, 2017: CA affirms termination; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration denied October 6, 2017.
• February 13, 2023: Supreme Court renders decision.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – judicial power includes enforcement of final judgments.
• Rule 39, Sections 6 and 14, Rules of Court: five-year period to execute final judgments by motion; writ of execution valid for same period.
• Rule 39, Section 36: mandatory examination of judgment obligor after unsatisfied writ.
• Civil Code Articles 1144(3) and 1152: ten-year prescriptive period to enforce judgments by independent action once execution period lapses.
RTC Ruling: Termination of Execution Proceedings
The RTC concluded that more than five years had passed since finality (July 2001–October 2015) and, under Section 6, Rule 39, could no longer enforce the judgment by motion. It (1) denied petitioner’s reconsideration; (2) terminated execution proceedings; and (3) upheld previous execution acts.
Court of Appeals’ Rationale
The CA held that:
- The five-year period to enforce a judgment by motion is absolute; issuance of a writ does not extend it.
- Petitioner caused undue delay by pursuing a motion to examine a non-resident obligor under Section 36, Rule 39.
- No meritorious ground existed to proceed beyond five years.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether a writ issued within five years but partially unsatisfied can be enforced beyond that period.
- Whether exceptions or equitable considerations can extend or suspend the prescriptive period.
- Whether petitioner’s motion to examine respondent constituted a meritorious ground interrupting prescription.
Time Limits for Execution and Enforcement
The Court reaffirmed that:
- A final and executory judgment may be executed by motion within five years from entry (Section 6, Rule 39).
- A writ of execution continues in effect only during that five-year span (Section 14, Rule 39).
- If levy occurs within five years, sale may take place later but only within ten years from entry, the period to enforce by independent action (Articles 1144(3) and 1152, Civil Code).
- Failure to fully satisfy the writ within five years obliges the judgment creditor to institute a revival action.
Jurisprudential Exceptions to Prescriptive Periods
Past decisions (e.g., Government v. Echaus; Quiambao v. Manila Motor Co.; Del Rosario) allow sale after five years if writ and levy occurred in time and sale is within ten years. However, those cases applied only when writ issuance and levy were timely and the subsequent auction was within the ten-year enforcement period.
Exceptional Circumstances and Suspension of Prescription
Under Torralba and later authorities, prescription may be suspended where delay:
- Is by agreement or court-approved compromise.
- Results from debtors’ financial difficulties or procedural maneuvers.
- Is due to actions or omissions of the judgment debtor or court officers preventing execution.
Findings of Exceptional Delay in This Case
The Supreme Court found that:
- Respondent repeatedly frustrated execution by resisting examination, causing multiple postponements and archival of the case.
- The original sheriff delayed enforcement, making partial returns only in 2005 despite a 200 ...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 234636)
Case Reference
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, First Division
- G.R. No. 234636, Decision dated February 13, 2023
- Ponencia by Associate Justice Zalameda
Procedural History
- January 1994: Petitioner Ron Zabarte files a complaint before the RTC of Pasig City to enforce a money judgment rendered by the California Superior Court of Contra Costa County.
- February 21, 1997: RTC issues decision in favor of petitioner, awarding USD 241,991.33 (plus legal interest from October 18, 1991), PHP 30,000 attorney’s fees, and costs; moral damages denied.
- August 31, 1999: Court of Appeals (CA) affirms the RTC decision; the decision becomes final and executory on July 16, 2001.
- September 2, 2002: Petitioner moves for issuance of writ of execution; RTC issues writ on September 4, 2002.
- June 22, 2004 & April 28, 2005: Sheriff’s partial returns show only partial satisfaction of the writ.
- September 3, 2005: RTC grants petitioner’s motion to amend the writ.
- October 18, 2005: Petitioner files Motion for Examination of Judgment Obligor under Section 36, Rule 39, which respondent opposes on territorial grounds.
- January–October 2006: RTC conducts clarificatory hearings, repeatedly resets dates on account of procedural motions, parties’ absences, and settlement negotiations.
- July 23, 2008: RTC orders the case archived to clear its docket.
- October 3, 2008 & August 11, 2009: Petitioner files motions to revive proceedings and for an alias writ of execution; RTC purportedly denies them but later reassigns Sheriff Boco to implement the amended writ.
- April 2011: Sheriff Boco garnishes PHP 280,160.27 and levies two condominium parking lots in respondent’s and his wife’s names; respondent allegedly sells the parking lots two days after annotation of levy.
- June 27, 2014: RTC partially grants petitioner’s motion for examination, ordering respondent to appear but denying examination of certain corporations.
- February 18, 2015: RTC reverses itself, holding respondent cannot be compelled to appear outside his residence.
- October 19, 2015 & December 17, 2015: RTC issues two Omnibus Orders terminating the execution proceedings for having become functus officio after five years.
- March 8, 2017: CA dismisses p