Quiz 14

A final and executory judgment ordered X to pay Y a sum of money. Y moved for execution, which the court granted as a matter of right. However, before the writ of execution could be implemented, a law was passed condoning a certain percentage of all debts of X's nature. X moved to stay the execution based on this new law.

Can the court stay the execution of the final judgment based on this newly enacted law?

Answer explanation

Yes. While execution is generally a matter of right upon finality of judgment, a supervening event that renders the execution unjust or inequitable can be a ground for staying or quashing a writ of execution. The new law condoning a portion of the debt constitutes such a supervening event that affects the rights of the judgment obligee and the obligation of the judgment debtor.

The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff P for damages against Defendant D. D immediately filed a Notice of Appeal. P then filed a motion for discretionary execution pending appeal, alleging that D was dissipating its assets and was likely to become insolvent before the appeal could be decided. D opposed, arguing that P had not presented sufficient evidence of these allegations and that no hearing was conducted on the motion.

Can the trial court grant discretionary execution pending appeal without a hearing and solely based on P's allegations of asset dissipation?

Answer explanation

No. Discretionary execution pending appeal requires good reasons to be stated in the order. While the dissipation of assets can be a good reason, the court generally needs to conduct a hearing to determine the validity and sufficiency of the grounds alleged. The opposing party must be given an opportunity to present their side. A mere allegation without supporting evidence and without a hearing may not be sufficient basis for granting discretionary execution. (Related to the requirement of a hearing and good reasons for discretionary execution pending appeal).

Plaintiff R obtained a final money judgment against Defendant S in 2010. The judgment was never executed. In 2021, R filed a motion for revival of judgment. S opposed, arguing that the judgment was already barred by the statute of limitations for revival of judgments (typically 10 years from finality). However, R presented evidence showing that S had repeatedly requested extensions of time to pay and had made partial payments within the ten-year period, thus allegedly delaying the execution.

Will the delays caused by S in fulfilling the judgment prevent the statute of limitations for revival from barring R's motion?

Answer explanation

It depends on the nature and effect of S's actions. If S's requests for extensions and partial payments can be construed as an acknowledgment of the debt and a waiver of the prescriptive period, the court may allow the revival. However, mere requests for extensions without a clear waiver might not toll the prescriptive period. The court will likely examine the specifics of S's actions and whether they effectively prevented R from pursuing timely execution.

Defendant T was served with summons but failed to file an answer due to his serious illness. As a result, the court declared him in default and eventually rendered a judgment against him. T later learned about the judgment and filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment, alleging that the plaintiff knowingly made false allegations in the complaint, which T could have refuted had he been able to participate in the proceedings.

Can T's petition for relief from judgment be granted based on the plaintiff's alleged fraudulent allegations in the complaint?

Answer explanation

Yes, potentially. Fraud, particularly extrinsic fraud (fraud that prevents a party from having a fair trial), is a valid ground for a Petition for Relief from Judgment. If T can sufficiently prove that the plaintiff's allegations were indeed fraudulent and that this fraud prevented him from presenting his defense, the court may grant the petition to allow him to present his case. The focus here is not just the default, but the alleged underlying fraud in the plaintiff's claim. (Related to fraud as a ground for relief from judgment, as seen in cases like Francisco vs. Puno, GR No. L-55694, Oct. 23, 1981).

A writ of execution was issued to enforce a money judgment against Debtor U. The sheriff levied on U's only computer, which U uses extensively for his online freelance work, his primary source of income to support his family. U filed a motion to quash the levy, arguing that the computer is a tool and implement necessary for his trade and thus exempt from execution.

Is U's computer exempt from execution under the circumstances?

Answer explanation

Yes, likely. The Rules of Court exempt "tools and implements necessarily used by him in his trade or profession" from execution. Given that U uses the computer as a primary tool for his online freelance work and it is essential for his livelihood and family support, it would likely fall under this exemption. The court would likely grant U's motion to quash the levy on the computer.