FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 170876. October 21, 2015.]
VIRGILIO A. SINDICO,petitioner,vs. BENJAMIN SINDICO,respondent.
[G.R. No. 200611. October 21, 2015.]
VIRGILIO A. SINDICO,petitioner, vs. EDGARDO SINDICO, BENJAMIN SINDICO, HON EVELYN E. SALAO, Presiding Judge, Branch 25, RTC of Iloilo and GANI E. LACATAN, Deputy Sheriff of Branch 25, RTC, Iloilo,respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 21, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 170876 — VIRGILIO A. SINDICO, Petitioner, v. BENJAMIN SINDICO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 200611 — VIRGILIO A. SINDICO, Petitioner, v. EDGARDO SINDICO, BENJAMIN SINDICO, HON EVELYN E. SALAO, Presiding Judge, Branch 25, RTC of Iloilo and GANI E. LACATAN, Deputy Sheriff of Branch 25, RTC, Iloilo, Respondents.
For consideration is the appeal by Virgilio A. Sindico of the resolution promulgated on January 20, 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 03123 entitled Virgilio A. Sindico v. Edgardo Sindico, Benjamin Sindico, Hon. Evelyn E. Salao, Presiding Judge, Branch 25, Regional Trial Court of Iloilo and Gani E. Lacatan, Deputy Sheriff of Branch 25, Regional Trial Court of Iloilo (G.R. No. 200611), whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed his petition for certiorari instituted to prevent the implementation of the writ of execution issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25 (RTC), in Iloilo City pursuant to the final and executory decision rendered on February 18, 1997 by the RTC. 1
On April 25, 2012, the Court consolidated G.R. No. 200611 with G.R. No. 170876 because they involved the same parties and their issues were interrelated. 2 Nonetheless, we stress that G.R. No. 170876 was already resolved on March 8, 2006, and the Court's resolution therein became final, for which reason the entry of judgment was issued on July 28, 2006. Accordingly, this decision relates only to the appeal in G.R. No. 200611.
Antecedents
The CA narrated the factual antecedents as follows:
Plaintiff Benjamin Sindico and Defendant Virgilio Sindico entered into a verbal contract of lease sometime in 1968 involving their Riceland of about 7 hectares situated in Brgy. Jambalud, Pototan and Zarraga, Iloilo. The lots are denominated as Lot Nos. 5528, 5529, 5530, 7751 and 9822.
They agreed that the annual rental would be one hundred forty (140) cavans of palay per agricultural crop year, at that time when the land used to produce only one crop per calendar year. An agricultural crop year falls into two calendar years: the first crop planted in June or July of a given year and harvested in October or November of the same given year; and the second crop planted in October, November or December of that same given year, and harvested in February, March or April of the succeeding year.
In 1978, the land was covered by an irrigation system and produced two to three crops of palay a year or 800 to 1,000 cavans per cropping.
On February 15, 1979, plaintiff wrote the defendant. He asked for a reasonable increase in rental of thirty (30) cavans per hectare per cropping or four hundred twenty cavans (420) cavans per year due to rising cost of irrigation and taxes, and stated therein that the farm-improvements and high-breed seeds have given the defendant good produce.
Defendant refused to pay the increase in rental and deliberately failed to pay in full and on time the original rental of 140 cavans of palay. In his letter reply dated May 3, 1979, Defendant intimated that he was going to file a case in court for the purpose of determining his status as a lease-hold tenant and if not proven, he was willing to vacate the land by not staying there even a day longer. Defendant is a municipal judge of Dingle, Iloilo, an owner of 22 hectares farm, a businessman and president of FACOMA in Sta. Barbara, Iloilo.
Plaintiff demanded for the return of the land and terminated the annual lease because of the defendant's failure to pay the rentals. Undaunted by the plaintiff's demands, defendant instead pursued in filing the tenancy case with the Court of Agrarian Relations claiming that he is a lease-hold tenant and not a civil law lessee contemplated under the Civil Code. The case was docketed as Case No. 3998 but it was later on dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Court of Agrarian Relations. Defendant appealed the matter (CA-GR SP No. 13742) to the Court of Appeals but the decision was affirmed in toto. The Supreme Court also dismissed the case when the defendant failed to file his appeal on time.
During the pendency of the tenancy case, defendant did not pay the plaintiff the reasonable rental of not less than 2,100 cavans of palay at P60.00 per cavan for the last five years from 1978 to present, except for the 300 cavans or a little more by order of the Court of Agrarian Relations to alleviate the plaintiff's economic plight.
On April 26, 1983, plaintiffs filed the instant civil case against the defendant claiming among others that because of the malicious filing of the tenancy case which reached the Supreme Court, he spent no less than P25,000.00 for attorney's fees and other litigation expenses; that defendant's refusal to pay rental and return the land deprived them to personally cultivate the land and that they suffered consequential damages in the form of unrealized income of not less than 300 cavans per palay per hectare per year or its money equivalent of P60.00 per cavan for 5 years if plaintiffs were the ones cultivating it after deducting the amount of P1,500.00 per cropping for the seeds, fertilizer and labor which would be no less than P102,000.00; that because of the malicious filing of that tenancy case in the agrarian court and defendant's act of securing an interlocutory order, plaintiffs suffered anxiety, shock, sleepless nights, humiliation and other suffering entitling them to damages assessed at P200,000.00 and exemplary damages of P50,000.00. 3
After trial, the RTC rendered its judgment on February 18, 1997 against Virgilio, viz.: DETACa
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby decreed that:
1) Defendant immediately vacate the premise of the leased property known as Lots Nos. 5528, 5529, 5530, 7751 and 9822, and give their full and peaceful possession to the plaintiffs, free from his tenants;
2) Defendant to pay the plaintiffs the unpaid original rental of one hundred forty cavans, single measure, or their money value or price at the time then prevailing, from crop years 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996 and until such time that he does not give back the leased premises to the plaintiffs;
3) Defendant to pay the plaintiffs increased rental of thirty cavans, single measure, per cropping per hectare or sixty cavans for two croppings per hectare per year for the six and half hectares that he cultivates or their money equivalent as of the time they became due, starting from crop-year 1979-1980 to date and until the same shall have been fully paid;
4) Defendant to pay plaintiffs legal interest on the original rental due starting from 1993-1994 crop year and as well as legal interest on the increased rental starting from 1979-1980 until the same shall have been fully paid and satisfied;
5) Defendant to pay plaintiffs attorney's fee and litigation expenses of P25,000.00; moral damages of P100,000.00; exemplary damages of P50,000.00 and the cost.
SO ORDERED. 4
Virgilio appealed (CA-G.R. CV No. 58671), but the CA affirmed the RTC through the decision promulgated on February 28, 2005, 5 and later denied Virgilio's motion for reconsideration on November 24, 2005. 6
Still aggrieved, Virgilio elevated the case to the Court (G.R. No. 170876), 7 which promulgated on March 8, 2006 its resolution denying the petition for review on certiorari, 8 to wit:
In accordance with Rule 45 and other related provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, only petitions which are accompanied by or comply strictly with the requirements specified therein shall be entertained. On the basis thereof, the Court Resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari dated 18 January 2006 assailing the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals for petitioner's failure to properly verify the petition in accordance with Section 1, Rule 45 in relation to Section 4, Rule 7, and A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, since the attached verification is based on affiant's knowledge and belief. As a consequence, the petition is treated as an unsigned pleading which under Section 3, Rule 7, produces no legal effect.
In any event, the petition failed to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in the questioned judgment to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case.
In due course, the resolution of March 8, 2006 attained finality, and entry of judgment was made on July 28, 2006. 9
As a consequence, respondents Benjamin Sindico (Benjamin) and Edgardo Sindico (Edgardo) filed their Motion for Execution of Judgment10 in the RTC on February 20, 2007. The RTC granted the motion on March 6, 2007, 11 and issued the writ of execution on March 7, 2007. 12 Virgilio sought reconsideration, 13 averring mainly that respondents were not the registered owners of the properties, but the RTC denied his motion for reconsideration on April 18, 2007, and directed the implementation of the writ of execution without further delay. 14
On March 10, 2007, Virgilio, undaunted, filed his Urgent Motion to Quash Writ of Execution, 15 contending that the writ of execution merely copied the dispositive portion of the February 18, 1997 decision of the RTC, and thereby did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 8 (e), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court specifying the contents of the writ of execution. He reminded that the principal obligation under the final decision to be executed was the payment of the unpaid rental of 140 cavans, single measure or their money value, from crop years 1993-1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, but the writ of execution did not indicate such obligation; and that the increased rentals, amount of interest, costs and damages as of March 7, 2007, the date of the issuance of the writ of execution, were also not indicated.
Meanwhile, the writ of execution was partially implemented by the possession of Lot Nos. 5528, 5529, 5530, 7751 and 9822 being turned over to the respondents. Remaining unsatisfied was the portion concerning the unpaid rental, interest, costs and damages. 16
After the RTC denied his Urgent Motion to Quash Writ of Execution for lack of merit on June 7, 2007, 17 Virgilio moved for reconsideration, 18 but on October 26, 2007 his motion was also denied. 19 In order to prevent the further implementation of the seemingly defective writ of execution, Virgilio instituted a petition for certiorari in the CA with prayer for injunctive relief (CA-G.R. SP No. 03123). 20
On January 23, 2008, the RTC favorably acted on the respondents' Motion to Admit Computation of Money Equivalent, declaring thusly:
. . . Following his manifestation on his willingness to pay the money equivalent of the rates decreed in the Judgment, this Court shall thus determine the computation of the money equivalent. However, this Court sees no reason why it shall not take into account the official data provided by the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, and so hereby considers the same.
xxx xxx xxx
Since this particular case involves an obligation arising from a contract of lease and not a loan or forbearance of money, the proper rate of legal interest is six percent (6%) per annum of the amount demanded. Such interest shall run from the crop years stated in the Judgment, until the date of finality of the Judgment, that is on July 28, 2006 per Entry of Judgment from the Supreme Court.
Further, pursuant to the above-stated guidelines in Easter, when the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money, as in this case, becomes final and executory, the rate of interest shall increase to twelve percent (12%) per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
Thus, the Court arrived at the following computation:
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, the money equivalent due to the Plaintiffs from the defendant as of crop year 2006-2007 is Five Million Five Hundred Ninety Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Six Pesos and Eighty Three Centavos (Php5,597,976.83).
Furnish all the parties and the Court of Appeals in Cebu City a copy of this Order.
SO ORDERED. 21 (Bold emphasis supplied.) aDSIHc
It is noted that no appeal or motion for reconsideration was filed vis-à-vis the January 23, 2008 order of the RTC.
On January 20, 2011, however, the CA dismissed Virgilio's petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 03123) for various reasons, namely:
xxx xxx xxx
1. there was no proper proof of service of the Petition to the court of origin and to the adverse party. Certainly, registry receipts can hardly be considered sufficient proof of receipt by the addressee of registered mail.
2. there was no competent evidence regarding petitioner's identity on the attached Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping as required by Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; and
3. the Notarial Certificate in the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping did not contain the serial number of the commission, the province or city where the notary public was commissioned, and the office address of the notary public, in violation of Section 2 (b) and (c), Rule VIII of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. . . . 22
On January 17, 2012, the CA denied Virgilio's motion for reconsideration. 23
Issues
Virgilio has come to the Court to assail by petition for review on certiorari the adverse January 20, 2011 and January 17, 2012 resolutions promulgated in CA-G.R. SP No. 03123 (G.R. No. 200611), submitting as issues for consideration the following:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH PRAYER FOR PRELIMINARY PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION AND/OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY TO THE COURT OF ORIGIN AS WELL AS TO THE ADVERSE PARTIES.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE VIS-À-VIS PETITIONER'S IDENTITY ON THE ATTACHED VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 12, RULE II OF THE 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE AND THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE IN THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 2(B) AND (C), RULE VIII OF THE SAME RULES.
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH PRAYER FOR PRELIMINARY PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION AND/OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY IS MERITORIOUS, HENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. 24
Ruling of the Court
The Court denies the petition for review.
Anent the issue on proof of service, we point out that under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, the petition for certiorari was to be filed together with the proof of service of the petition on the RTC and the respondents. Contrary to the holding of the CA, Virgilio complied with this requirement, for the records contained the affidavit of Ninfa P. Jimena, the person who had mailed the petition for certiorari to the respondents, and the registry receipts issued by the post office. 25 The affidavit and the registry receipts constituted the proof of service under Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
Section 13. Proof of service. — Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee. (10a)
On the defective compliance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly the requirements for the presentation of competent evidence of identity and the details of the notarial commission, the CA should not have summarily dismissed the petition for certiorari on that basis. To start with, the verification was a merely formal, not jurisdictional, requirement that affected only the form of the pleading; hence, non-compliance with the requirement was not a fatal defect. Indeed, the verification was intended only to provide the assurance that the allegations were true and correct, and were not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading was filed in good faith. 26 And, secondly, considering that the defects could be corrected without difficulty, it would have been more consistent with substantial justice for the CA to have instead directed Virgilio to correct the defects instead of outrightly dismissing his petition. 27
The foregoing notwithstanding, the petition for certiorari could not prosper because of its lack of substance and worth.
The writ of execution issued on March 7, 2007 specifically ordered Virgilio: (1) to vacate the leased properties; and (2) to settle his unpaid rental fees, interest and damages. The first action is not in dispute here because the possession of the properties were already turned over to the respondents, per the Sheriff's Partial Return of Service dated May 17, 2007. 28 But the performance of the second action remains to be still in dispute, with Virgilio insisting that the writ of execution did not meet the requirements of Section 8 (e), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 8. Issuance, form and contents of a writ of execution. — The writ of execution shall: (1) issue in the name of the Republic of the Philippines from the court which granted the motion; (2) state the name of the court, the case number and title, the dispositive part of the subject judgment or order; and (3) require the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it is directed to enforce the writ according to its terms, in the manner hereinafter provided:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) In all cases, the writ of execution shall specifically state the amount of the interest, costs, damages, rents, or profits due as of the date of the issuance of the writ, aside from the principal obligation under the judgment. For this purpose, the motion for execution shall specify the amounts of the foregoing reliefs sought by the movant. (bold emphasis supplied)
The fundamental rule is that the writ of execution should mirror the disposition of the judgment that is the subject of execution. This rule requires the writ of execution to be true to the judgment, for the implementing officer should not have any discretion to add to, subtract from or in anyway alter the judgment. Yet, Virgilio has started the dispute we are now resolving because he manifested that he was willing to pay the arrears and interests in terms of their money value. His manifestation, which was made during the stage of execution, necessarily imposed on the RTC the task of converting his obligation into monetary terms. In this connection, the RTC did not fail, for, in denying Virgilio's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his Urgent Motion to Quash Writ of Execution, it stated in the order of October 26, 2007, as follows: ETHIDa
The judgment clearly decreed, among other things, one hundred forty cavans, single measure as the rate for unpaid original rental for crop years from 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996 and until such time he does not give back the leased premises; thirty cavans, single measure as the rate for increased rental per cropping per hectare or sixty cavans for two croppings per hectare per year for the six and half hectares that defendant cultivates as of the time they became due, starting from crop year 1979-1980 to date and until the same shall have been fully paid.
Furthermore, it is a matter of record that defendant-movant himself has already manifested in open court his willingness to pay instead the money equivalent of the above-mentioned rates. Thus, there is now the other Motion to Admit Computation of Money Equivalent of the Award for Actual Damages and Opposition thereto submitted before this Court for resolution.
Finally, to the mind of the Court, to allow the defendant to first agree as to the computation of the money equivalent of the rates decreed in the final and executory judgment before the same could be executed would be to defeat the nature of said judgment being final and executory and where — under the law and jurisprudence — execution shall issue as a matter of right. It would be grossly unfair and unjust to the plaintiffs were they to first secure the approval of the defendant as to computation of the money equivalent before a writ executing the final and executory judgment can be issued. To countenance such situation would doubtless open the floodgates for more, prolonged and protracted litigations which hardly serve the interest of justice. 29 (bold emphasis supplied)
Under the circumstances, Virgilio's insistence is unworthy of serious consideration. The total of his judgment liability was determinate and fixed, and not left to uncertainty despite the perceived deficiency of the recitals of the writ of execution.
Moreover, the perceived deficiency of the writ of execution was clarified in the order dated January 23, 2008, 30 whereby the RTC, acting on the respondents' Motion to Admit Computation of Money Equivalent in the context of Virgilio's written opposition to the motion, not only precisely itemized his monetary obligations under the judgment in response to his manifestation of willingness to pay the money equivalent of the cavans of rice, including the rate of interest to be paid until the full satisfaction of his obligation, but also expressly disposed that "the money equivalent due to the Plaintiffs from the defendant as of crop year 2006-2007 is Five Million Five Hundred Ninety Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Six Pesos and Eighty Three Centavos (Php5,597,976.83)." 31 There being no indication that such details and disposition were erroneous, or false, or excessive, or in any way varying from the judgment subject of execution, it is unavoidable to declare that the order dated January 23, 2008 was a proper and judicious supplementation of the writ of execution that Virgilio had himself invited. In fact, he did not assail the order if he disagreed with its tenor and objective.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the resolution promulgated on January 20, 2011 in CA-G.R. SP No. 03123; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED." PEREZ, J., on official business; VELASCO, JR., J., acting member per S.O. No. 2253 dated October 14, 2015.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGARD O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo (G.R. No. 200611), pp. 38-41; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta Jr., with Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Associate Justice Agnes Reyes Carpio concurring.
2. Id. at 152.
3. Rollo (G.R. No. 170876), pp. 24-25.
4. Id. at 38-39.
5. Id. at 23-31; penned by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale (retired), with Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and Associate Justice Vicente L. Yap (retired) concurring.
6. Id. at 45.
7. Id. at 15-22.
8. Id. at 47.
9. Id. at 95.
10. Rollo (G.R. No. 200611), pp. 100-101.
11. Id. at 106-107.
12. Id. at 73-74.
13. Id. at 110-111.
14. Id. at 121-122.
15. Id. at 26; and 123-125.
16. Id. at 168-169.
17. Id. at 126.
18. Id. at 127-131.
19. Id. at 139-140.
20. Id. at 75-90.
21. Id. at 53-57.
22. Id. at 38-40.
23. Id. at 59-62.
24. Id. at 28.
25. Id. at 89-91.
26. Heirs of Amada A. Zaulda v. Zaulda, G.R. No. 201234, March 17, 2014, 719 SCRA 308, 322.
27. Id. at 323.
28. Rollo (G.R. No. 200611), pp. 168-169.
29. Rollo (G.R. No. 200611), pp. 139-140.
30. Id. at 53-57.
31. Supra note 21.