First United Constructors Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 171901             December 19, 2006

FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION, petitioner, THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ALEXANDER S. BALUT, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 76 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (NCRJ, QUEZON CITY), THE SHERIFF OF RTC, BRANCH 76, ENGR. ERNESTO G. BAUTISTA/ DYNAMIC BLASTING SPECIALIST OF THE PHILIPPINES and NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

TINGA, J.:

We resolve the Petition¹ dated March 30, 2006 filed by First United Constructors Corporation (FUCC), seeking the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction annulling the Court of Appeals' Resolution² of even date, which directed respondents to file their comment on FUCC's petition in CA-G.R. SP. No. 93586 but denied the latter's prayer for the issuance of a TRO.

The factual antecedents are as follows:

In National Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto,³P74,035,503.50) plus interest to FUCC in relation to its claim against National Power Corporation (NPC). The amount represented the just compensation payable to FUCC for the blasting work it undertook in connection with its contract with NPC for the construction of power facilities. The decision became final and executory on January 4, 2005.

FUCC filed a motion with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 99, Quezon City, for the appointment of a new implementing sheriff to complete the implementation of a previously issued Writ of Execution in accordance with National Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto. Subsequently, a certain Engr. Ernesto Bautista (Bautista) of Dynamic Blasting Specialist of the Philippines filed a motion with the trial court asking the court to direct the branch sheriff to turn over to him the sum of Thirty Seven Million Seven Hundred Twenty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Three Pesos (P37,723,823.00), plus interest, allegedly belonging to him. The motion was set for hearing.

During the hearing, FUCC manifested that it does not recognize the personality of Bautista to file the motion since Bautista was not a party to the case. It reiterated its manifestation in its Ex-Parte Comment Ad Cautelam

The trial court issued an Order⁴, holding that it has jurisdiction to determine Bautista's claim. Citing Paman, et al. v. Hon. Seneris, et al.⁵Yap v. Hon. Tañada, etc., et al.,⁶ the trial court ruled that it has the power to determine all issues of fact and law which may be involved in the execution of a case and that in the interest of substantial justice, one who is not a party to a case is entitled to enter the same to get his claim. The trial court found that both FUCC and NPC recognize Bautista as the sub-contractor for the blasting works. Being a privy to the case was bound by the decision in National Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto is binding on Bautista. Accordingly, the trial court granted Bautista's motion and directed that the respective money claims of FUCC and Bautista shall be satisfied through the release of the funds of NPC deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank). It then ordered that the amount of P37,723,823.00 due Bautista shall be deducted from the amount of P74,035,503.50 adjudged to FUCC in National Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto. An Alias Writ of Execution⁷Order of the trial court.

In a Resolution⁸ dated August 8, 2005, the Court, upon FUCC's filing of an Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, directed the trial court to maintain the status quo as of August 3, 2005 until further orders from it. Subsequently, the Court granted FUCC's Motion for Leave to Withdraw Urgent Motion for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order.

FUCC then sought the annulment of the July 18, 2005 Order⁹

FUCC questioned the Orders¹⁰ and March 8, 2006,¹¹ as well as the Alias Writ of Execution¹²via a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction but the appellate court refused the issuance of a TRO for failure of FUCC to show facts that would entitle it to the relief demanded.

In this Petition, FUCC alleges that the OrderNational Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto. The trial court had the opportunity to correct this grievous error but the judge to whom the case was re-raffled refused to annul the order on the ground that it cannot annul an order of a judge of another branch of the same court. FUCC contends that the doctrine against intra-court interference is not violated when the judge of a branch who annuls or modifies the order issued by a judge of another branch acts in the same case and belongs to the same court. It points out that Civil Case No. Q-94-20062 was merely re-raffled to RTC, Branch 76, Quezon City upon the inhibition of the Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 99, Quezon City.

In the Resolution¹³

A Comment¹⁴¹⁵Manifestation/Motion¹⁶P37,723,823.00 from the decision in National Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto pending the resolution of the case which he filed.

In his Comment¹⁷

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment¹⁸ dated August 24, 2006 on behalf of the NPC, averring that the petition should be dismissed on the ground of forum-shopping. Moreover, there is allegedly no basis for the issuance of an injunctive writ because the procedure laid down in Presidential Decree No. 1445 directing that all money claims against the government must first be filed with the Commission on Audit was not complied with.

The main question for resolution is whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to issue the TRO prayed for by FUCC in C.A.-G.R. SP. No. 93586. However, in order to finally settle the present controversy, and in view of the fact that this case is fundamentally just an offshoot of our decision in National Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto, we shall also resolve the collateral issues pertaining to the validity of the Orders

In denying the TRO, the appellate court held that the dissolution of this Court's status quo order dated August 8, 2005 rendered the trial court's Order

A reading of the Resolution¹⁹ The status quo order was predicated on FUCC's allegation, which the Court deemed meritorious, that in issuing the Order dated July 18, 2005, "the trial court effectively allowed the intervention of Bautista without any motion to intervene having been filed by the latter, re-opened the case, admitted alleged new evidence, and rendered a new decision altering the Decision of this Court."²⁰

The subsequent withdrawal of FUCC's Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order²¹ upon its manifestation that it shall assail the Order dated July 18, 2005 in the Court of Appealsstatus quo order. In fact, in the Resolution²²status quo order, fully cognizant of the need to continue to enjoin the implementation of the Order dated July 18, 2005 until it shall have been finally determined that the latter does not alter, amend or modify the Court's decision in National Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto.

Such action by the Court should have prompted the appellate court to make its own independent evaluation of FUCC's allegations in support of its prayer for TRO instead of perfunctorily denying the same. The factual antecedents of this case should have made it obvious to the Court of Appeals that the preservation of the status quo is both desirable and essential.²³

It is significant to note, moreover, that Bautista has chosen another avenue of redress by filing a separate complaint for specific performance with the RTC, effectively abandoning his earlier assertion that the Orders of the trial court dated July 18, 2005 and March 8, 2006 are valid. His prayer in this case that the Court exclude the amount of P37,723,823.00 from the award to FUCC in the amount of P74,035,503.50 plus interest adjudged in National Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto is utterly baseless.

We should reiterate, in this connection, that the decision in National Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto awarded to FUCC the amount of P74,035,503.50 plus legal interest. Nowhere in the decision did we rule on Bautista's entitlement to even a portion of this amount. The trial court committed egregious error in altering the clear tenor of this decision by directing that the respective money claims of FUCC and Bautista shall be satisfied through the release of the funds of NPC deposited with the Land Bank and ordering that the amount of P37,723,823.00 be deducted from the award to FUCC. By refusing to issue a TRO, the appellate court abetted this grave error, in effect sustaining the trial court's orders amending or altering a final and executory judgment.

Public policy and sound practice demand that at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final and irrevocable at some definite date fixed by law. This is better observed if the court executing the judgment would refrain from creating further controversy by effectively modifying and altering the dispositive portion of the decision, thus further delaying the satisfaction of the judgment. No matter how just the intention of the trial court, it cannot legally reverse what has already been settled.²⁴

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated March 30, 2006, as well as the Order dated March 8, 2006 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 76, Quezon City, and the Order dated July 18, 2005 and Alias Writ of Execution dated July 29, 2005 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 99, Quezon City, in Civil Case No. Q-94-20062, are hereby ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. The trial court is hereby DIRECTED to forthwith issue an Alias Writ of ExecutionNational Power Corporation v. Alonzo-Legasto, G.R. No. 148318, November 22, 2004, 443 SCRA 342. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio Morales, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

¹ Rollo, pp. 3-56.

² Id. at 60-63; Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso and concurred in by Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Amelita G. Tolentino.

³ G.R. No. 148318, November 22, 2004, 443 SCRA 342.

⁴ Id. at 190-198 and 372-380. The Order was issued by Hon. Evelyn Corpus-Cabochan.

⁵ 201 Phil. 290 (1982).

⁶ 197 Phil. 181 (1982).

⁷ Id. at 75 and 383.

⁸ Id. at 344-345.

⁹ Id. at 64-74.

¹⁰ Supra note 4.

¹¹ Supra.

¹² Rollo, p. 342.

¹³ Id. at 449-450.

¹⁴ Id. at 463-564.

¹⁵ Id. at 656-658.

¹⁶ Id. at 659-661.

¹⁷ Id. at 812-819.

¹⁸ Id. at 792-810.

¹⁹ Id. at 345.

²⁰ Id. at 344.

²¹ Id. at 219-239.

²² Id. at 390-391.

²³ Garcia v. Mojica, 372 Phil. 892 (1999).

²⁴ Johnson & Johnson (Phil.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 330 Phil. 856 (1996).