View full case

CENTRAL SURETY

FACTS:

The case involves a dealership agreement between Ernesto Olson and respondent Planters Products, Inc., wherein Olson agreed to purchase fertilizers and agricultural chemicals from respondent for resale. To secure Olson's obligations, petitioner and Vista Surety and Insurance, Co. executed a surety undertaking in favor of respondent. Olson failed to pay respondent, prompting respondent to claim the amount due from petitioner and Vista Insurance. The trial court found petitioner and Vista Insurance liable and ordered them to pay the principal amount plus interest, attorney's fees, and cost of suit. Petitioner appealed but failed to pay the required docket fees, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The decision became final and executory, and a motion for execution of judgment was filed, which the trial court granted. Petitioner filed several motions and appeals, causing delays in the execution. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari, and petitioner filed this appeal on certiorari. The issue to be resolved is whether execution of judgment can be ordered by mere motion despite the lapse of five years from entry of judgment.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the execution of a final judgment may be made by mere motion despite the lapse of five years.

RULING:

  1. The execution of a final judgment may be made by mere motion despite the lapse of five years, except when the delay in enforcing the judgment is caused by the party assailing the filing of the motion. In this case, the delay in the execution was caused by the petitioner's dilatory maneuvers, which included filing numerous motions and appeals in the appellate courts. Thus, the motion for execution filed by respondent is allowed, and the petition is denied.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A final judgment may be executed by mere motion within five years from the date of entry of judgment.

  • Delay in execution caused by the party assailing the filing of the motion is an exception to the general rule that execution may be made by mere motion.

  • The purpose of time limitations for enforcing a judgment is to prevent a party from sleeping on their rights.

  • Liberal interpretation of the rules is warranted in cases where a strict enforcement will not serve the ends of justice.