478 Phil. 913
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
which was approved by the MTC in its Decision dated January 17, 1991, enjoining the parties to abide by its terms and conditions.“COMPROMISE AGREEMENT”
PARTIES, assisted by their respective undersigned counsels, to this Honorable Court, respectfully submit the following Compromise Agreement:
- The Defendant agrees to pay an increased rental from
P12,589.05 toP19,000.00 per month effective upon the signing of this Compromise Agreement;- That in addition to the foregoing, the amount of
P22,000.00 representing additional rentals from March, 1990 to January, 1991 shall be paid in equal proportions by the Defendant to the Plaintiff within a period of one (1) year, both of which amounts shall be payable in advance not later than the first five (5) days of the month;- This Lease agreement shall be effective for a period of one (1) year;
- Both parties respectively waive their other claim/counter claims in the above-entitled case;
- The parties agree that if any of the provisions of this Compromise agreement is violated by the Defendant, then execution shall issue on the basis of this agreement.
(SGD) ESTANISLAWA PANER (SGD) JOSE TAMBUNTING Plaintiff Defendant
(SGD) ATTY. DANIEL T. SOLOMON
(SGD) ATTY. PEDRO T. SANTOS, JR.Counsel for the Defendant Counsel for the Plaintiff
WHEREAS, upon motion of the plaintiff’s counsel that a writ of execution be issued, the same was granted on April 7, 1992.Petitioner questioned the same in the RTC which the latter dismissed upon subsequent Manifestation and Motion, dated March 9, 1993, filed by petitioner alleging that he had vacated the subject premises. Objecting to the dismissal of the case, on the ground that she intends to pursue her counterclaim against petitioner, respondent assailed the dismissal with the CA which affirmed the dismissal order. Unperturbed, respondent brought the CA decision to this Court docketed as G.R. No. 120913. The CA decision was affirmed by the Court, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to cause the above-named defendant and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the premises located at 490 Aurora Blvd., cor. Sgt. Catolos, Cubao, Quezon City and you likewise make a return of this writ of execution to this Court within sixty (60 ) days from the date of receipt hereof.[7]
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari, as well as private respondent’s comment thereon, the Court further Resolved to DISMISS the petition without prejudice to his taking appropriate recourse re compulsory counterclaim for moral damages and attorney’s fees.[8]and which became final and executory on January 3, 1996.[9]
. . .and praying that an alias writ of execution be issued by the court for the amounts therein indicated. Over and above the opposition of petitioner, the MTC issued its Order dated March 11, 1997, the dispositive portion of which reads:
7. That, however, during the time that the case was pending and before Defendant finally vacated the premises on March 9, 1993 in the absence of any specific date in his Manifestation and Motion of March 9, 1993, as to when he vacated the premises, it is safe to presume that he left the same on March 9, 1993, the date he filed said Manifestation and Motion (Annex “A”) which totalsP259,033.00, itemized as follows:
Rentals from Jan. 18, 1992 to February 18, 1993 (13 mos. x P19,000.00)= P247,000.00Rentals from Feb. 18, 1963 to March 9, 1993 (19 days x P633.33)= P12,033.27P259,033.00plus cost of suit[10]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Alias Writ of Execution is hereby GRANTED. Let an Alias Writ of Execution be issued for the satisfaction and execution of the judgment herein rendered.Claiming that the MTC order is a patent nullity on the ground that it modified the tenor of the judgment based on the compromise agreement executed by the parties, petitioner went up to the RTC in a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. In its Resolution dated July 17, 1997, the RTC denied the writ prayed for and dismissed the petition for failure of petitioner to show that the MTC Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the alias writ of execution. Petitioner assailed said RTC resolution before the CA which affirmed the RTC with the modification that the payment of back rentals should be computed from January 18, 1992 to February 15, 1993.
SO ORDERED.[11]
In her Comment, respondent submits that contrary to the claim of petitioner, the alias writ of execution did not go beyond the provisions of the original writ of execution and the compromise agreement; and petitioner would not suffer any grave and irreparable injury from the enforcement of a clearly valid alias writ of execution.SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS
The Court of Appeals committed the following errors:
- In, in effect, holding that the Alias Writ of Execution can go beyond the provisions of the Original Writ of Execution and the Compromise Agreement;
- In holding that petitioner, will not suffer a grave and irreparable injury from the enforcement of a clearly void Alias Writ of Execution.[12]
The Court notes that on January 24, 1992, respondent’s motion for execution merely prayed that a writ be issued directing the eviction of petitioner as well as all persons or entities claiming rights under him.[13] It is only when respondent filed her motion for issuance of alias writ of execution that she demanded the payment of
- The compromise agreement was signed by the parties on January 16, 1991;
- Parties therein entered into a new lease agreement effective for a period of one year from the date of signing of said Compromise Agreement, or, from January 16, 1991 up to January 16, 1992;
- The rental per month is
P19,000.00 effective January 16, 1991;- Both parties agreed that if any of the provisions of their compromise agreement is violated by petitioner, then execution shall issue on the basis of said agreement.