THIRD DIVISION
|
LYDIA MONTEBON, a.k.a. JINGLE
MONTEBON, Petitioner, - versus - THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE
HON. SILVINO PAMPILO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 26, Regional
Trial Court of Manila, CARLOS P. BAJAR, in his capacity as Branch-Sheriff of
Branch 26, RTC-Manila, and JOSE RIZAL LOPEZ, as represented by EDWIN PASTOR, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 180568
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: July 13,
2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari
of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1]
dated May 9, 2007 and Resolution dated November 13, 2007, which dismissed a
petition for certiorari for lack of
merit. Petitioner questions the respondent court’s issuance of a writ of
execution pending appeal of a decision, the dispositive portion of which
contained an incorrect address of the subject property.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On July 4, 2004, private respondent
Jose Rizal Lopez, represented by Edwin Pastor who lives at P20,000.00. When petitioner defaulted in the payment of
the monthly rentals, private respondent made several demands on the petitioner
for the payment of the accumulated rentals due, amounting to P384,900.00,
but petitioner refused to pay. When his final demand remained unheeded, private
respondent filed the ejectment case against petitioner.
On December 27, 2005, the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of private respondent. The
dispositive portion of the MeTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of herein plaintiff and against defendant, ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under her:
1. To
vacate the subject premises located at
2. To pay plaintiff the amount of Php384,900.00 representing the back rentals as of May 2004;
3. To pay plaintiff the amount of Php20,000.00 as current rental, beginning June 2004 until the premises had been fully vacated;
4. To pay plaintiff the amount of Php10,000.00 for and as attorney’s fees; and
5. To pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED[2]
On
January 3, 2006, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal,[3]
but she failed to file a supersedeas bond. On account of this, private
respondent filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution pending appeal
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On March 30, 2006, the RTC issued an Order[4]
granting the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution. A writ of execution was
issued subsequently.[5]
Noticing the erroneous address
indicated in the MeTC Decision, private respondent filed a Manifestation and
Motion[6]
before the RTC asking that the address found in the Writ of Execution be
changed from 1457 Paz Street, Paco, Manila to 1459 Paz Street, Paco, Manila,
the latter being the correct address of the subject premises. The RTC granted
the motion in an Order dated June 13, 2006.[7]
On June 15, 2006, the RTC issued the
assailed Alias Writ of Execution Pending Appeal[8]
with the correct address. Implementation of the writ was suspended pending
petitioner’s offer of an amicable settlement.[9]
For failure of the petitioner to
submit a written proposal on how to liquidate her past due rentals, the RTC
issued an Order[10] dated
October 27, 2006, granting private respondent’s motion and implementing the
Alias Writ of Execution. Accordingly, Sheriff Carlos P. Bajar issued the
assailed Notice to Vacate Premises.[11]
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari with the CA,
assailing the (1) March 30, 2006 Order, (2) June 13, 2006 Order, (3) Alias Writ
of Execution Pending Appeals, (4) October 27, 2006 Order, and (5) Notice to
Vacate Premises.
On May 9, 2007, the CA dismissed the
petition.[12] The CA
later denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
In this petition, petitioner submits
the following issues:
A.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT ISSUED THE DECISION DATED MAY 09, 2007 AND SUBSEQUENT DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2007 AND RULED THAT THE HONORABLE REGIONAL COURT DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT GRANTED THE MOTION TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT AND SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUING AN ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL ON THE CORRECTED ADDRESS.
B.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN NOT FINDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT IS DEFECTIVE FOR IT CONTAINS AN ERRONEOUS ADDRESS OF THE SUBJECT PREMISES.[13]
Petitioner posits that the error in
the dispositive portion was not merely typographical as it pertained to the
address of the subject matter of the ejectment case. She then argues that the
RTC may not issue a writ of execution over a decision that is defective on its
face. After all, the province of a writ of execution pending appeal is to
implement the decision as rendered by the court of origin. Private respondent
should have sought first the correction of the decision before asking for its
execution. Since the MeTC Decision states a wrong address of the subject
premises, it cannot be implemented without giving the MeTC an opportunity to
correct its error.
The petition is absolutely without
merit.
The CA correctly held that the RTC
did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of a writ of
execution with the correct address of the subject property. Such act was well
within a court’s inherent power “to amend and control its process and orders so
as to make them conformable to law and justice.”[14]
At the time the motion for execution
pending appeal was filed, the RTC had already assumed jurisdiction over the
case. Hence, the MeTC was no longer in a position to correct the error
contained in the dispositive portion. The duty devolved upon the RTC, before
which the appeal was pending, to rectify the error contained in the dispositive
portion of the judgment sought to be executed. Clerical error or ambiguity in
the dispositive portion of a judgment may be rectified or clarified by
reference primarily to the body of the decision itself and, suppletorily, to
the pleadings previously filed.[15]
The rule that a writ of execution
must conform to the dispositive portion of the decision applies with equal
force to the case. In directing that a writ of execution be issued with the
correct address of the subject property, the RTC did not veer away from the MeTC
judgment, which, without a doubt, referred to the plaintiff’s property. The
complaint states that the plaintiff’s property is the place where the
petitioner is living and maintaining a business establishment, that is, at
By filing this patently unmeritorious
case, obviously, petitioner has unjustly prevented the execution of the MeTC
judgment. A judgment is not rendered defective just because of a typographical
error in the dispositive portion. The judgment remains valid and subject to
execution.
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the petition is DENIED.
The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated May 9, 2007 and Resolution dated November
13, 2007 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring; rollo, pp. 41-51.
[2] Rollo, pp. 56-57.
[3]
[4] Rollo, p. 55.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Rollo, p. 149.
[13]
[14] Rules of Court, Rule 135, Sec. 5, par. (g).
[15] Reinsurance Company of the Orient, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 61250, June 3, 1991, 198 SCRA 19, 28.