When and How is a Judgment Executed under Rule 39?

Execution as a matter of Right

In Mayor Marcial Vargas v. Fortunato Cajucom, G.R. No. 171095, June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court held that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution. Its issuance is, in fact, the trial court’s ministerial duty, the only limitation being that the writ must conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated, more particularly, the orders or decrees in the dispositive portion of the decision. Even the holding in abeyance of the issuance of a writ of execution of a final and executory judgment can be considered abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.

Stay of Discretionary Execution

Discretionary execution issued under Section 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court may be stayed upon approval by the proper court of a sufficient supersedeas bond filed by the party against whom it is directed, conditioned upon the performance of the judgment or order allowed to be executed in case it shall be finally sustained in whole or in part. The bond thus given may be proceeded against on motion with notice to the surety. (Section 3, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court)

Effect of Reversal of Executed Judgement

Where the executed judgment is reversed totally or partially, or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court may, on motion, issue such orders of restitution or reparation of damages as equity and justice may warrant under the circumstances.

Execution by Motion or by Independent Action

A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations. (Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court)

The Supreme Court Decides: Public officers may be held liable for malversation even if they do not use public property or funds under their custody for their personal benefit.

In malversation through negligence, what characterizes the negligence is not what the offender did after the public funds or property were taken by another person but what the offender did or omitted to do which permitted the taking thereof.

The Supreme Court Decides: It is hornbook doctrine that an acquittal will not necessarily extinguish civil liability unless the court declares in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.

Why choose ALBURO LAW?

Alburo Alburo & Associates Law Offices:

• Have labor law and business law as our main fields of practice. For almost a decade now, we have been helping businesses improve their productivity and profitability by helping them comply with relevant laws, rules, and regulations.

• Observe high standards of excellence.

• Always consider innovative approaches to effectively address the legal concerns of our clients, covering a wide range of industries such as food, manufacturing, chemicals, real estate, retail and wholesale trade, and services in fields such as information technology, human resources, security, training, process outsourcing and other manpower services, among many others.

Contact us: 09778050020 | 09778050015 | (02) 7745-4391

Email us: [email protected] | [email protected]