View full case

ASSOCIATED ANGLO-AMERICAN TOBACCO CORPORATION v. CA

FACTS:

Spouses Paul Pelaez, Jr. and Roceli Mamisay Pelaez were employees of Associated Anglo-American Tobacco Corporation (the Corporation). Paul worked as Sales Supervisor and Roceli as a secretary. The Corporation required Paul to post a bond, which he complied with by executing a mortgage bond over his family's house and lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 155994. The Corporation initiated the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage bond after determining that Paul had defaulted in remitting the sales proceeds. To stop the extrajudicial sale, Paul and Roceli filed a Complaint against the Corporation, Dy, and the Sheriff before the RTC. The RTC issued a restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the extrajudicial sale. After due hearing, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of the spouses Pelaez, ordering the Corporation and Dy to pay them a certain amount and release the mortgage. The RTC subsequently issued an Order amending its Decision by increasing the amount of damages awarded. The spouses Pelaez filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and for partial execution, which was granted by the RTC. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, but it was dismissed for lack of merit. The CA held that the RTC decision had become final and executory. Petitioners filed the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, assailing the CA's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appeal from the February 7, 2001 RTC Order should be deemed an appeal from the whole integrated amended Decision.

  2. Whether the issuance of the writ of execution was justified and in accordance with the rules.

  3. Whether the December 12, 2002 RTC Orders were null and void.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the appeal from the February 7, 2001 RTC Order must be deemed an appeal from the whole integrated amended Decision.

  2. No, the issuance of the writ of execution was not justified. The RTC failed to state good reasons for the issuance of the writ and it no longer had jurisdiction over the case when the motion for partial execution was filed.

  3. Yes, the December 12, 2002 RTC Orders were null and void since they were based on the null and void May 9, 2002 Order.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Certiorari may be availed of even after the lapse of the appeal period if there are exceptions such as when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate, when the broader interest of justice requires, when the writs issued are null and void, or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

  • A supplemental decision exists side by side with the original decision, while an amended and clarified judgment supersedes the original decision.

  • A partial amendment to a decision may render only a portion of the decision final and unappealable, depending on the severability of the issues or claims presented.

  • Division of matters, issues, or claims is permitted when they can be separately resolved, but not when they are material and intertwined with one another.

  • An appeal from one order must be deemed an appeal from the whole integrated amended decision if they are materially interrelated.

  • Execution of judgment, whether wholly or partially, is not a matter of right but of discretion, and good reasons must be stated in a special order after due hearing.

  • The motion for partial execution should be filed while the trial court still has jurisdiction over the case.

  • The trial court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeal filed in due time, and it no longer has jurisdiction to act on any motion for partial execution.

  • If the order of execution is not in conformity with the rules, it is null and void.