In Ligaya Esguerra, Lowell Esguerra And Liesell Esguerra vs. Holcim Philippines, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed the extent to which a trial court can modify a final judgment during its execution, particularly concerning royalty payments for extracted materials. The Court ruled that while a trial court has the authority to supervise the execution of its judgments, it cannot alter or modify the original decision, except to correct clerical errors. This case clarifies the boundaries of judicial authority during the execution phase and emphasizes the importance of adhering to the terms of a final and executory judgment.

Limestone Legacy: When Can a Court Reopen a Closed Case to Recalculate Royalties?

The heart of this case traces back to a dispute over land ownership and the extraction of resources, specifically limestone, from the contested property. Jorge Esguerra, the original claimant, initiated legal action against Iluminada de Guzman, seeking to annul a Free Patent and halt the quarrying activities of Hi-Cement Corporation (now HOLCIM Philippines, Inc.). The initial trial court dismissed Esguerra’s complaint, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, declaring a portion of de Guzman’s land title null and void and ordering Hi-Cement to cease quarrying operations and provide an accounting of royalties paid to de Guzman. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 120004.

The trouble began during the execution of the appellate court’s decision. The heirs of Esguerra sought to enforce the judgment, particularly the accounting of royalties. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) went beyond the scope of the original ruling. Instead of simply enforcing the accounting, the RTC conducted hearings to determine the exact amount of royalties HOLCIM owed to the Esguerras, ultimately issuing orders for HOLCIM to pay a sum of P91,872,576.72. This action prompted HOLCIM to file a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, arguing that the RTC had exceeded its authority by effectively modifying the final judgment.

One of the primary issues raised was whether HOLCIM was estopped from questioning the RTC’s jurisdiction to conduct hearings and accept evidence on the royalty amount. The Esguerras argued that HOLCIM’s prior actions and statements indicated a willingness to pay royalties, thus precluding them from challenging the court’s authority. HOLCIM countered that jurisdiction is conferred by law, not by estoppel or agreement, and that the RTC’s actions were beyond the scope of the original judgment.

The Supreme Court, in analyzing the procedural aspects, addressed the issue of whether HOLCIM’s petition for certiorari in the CA was the proper remedy. The Esguerras contended that HOLCIM should have filed an appeal, arguing that the RTC was merely implementing the decision of the CA. However, the Court clarified that an order of execution is not appealable. Section 1(f), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court explicitly states this principle. An aggrieved party may file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 when challenging an order of execution.

Sec. 1. Subject of appeal.—An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.

No appeal may be taken from:

x x x x

(f) an order of execution;

x x x x

In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.

The Court then delved into the core issue of whether the RTC had overstepped its bounds during the execution proceedings. The fundamental principle is that a final judgment cannot be altered or modified, except for clerical errors. The dispositive portion of the decision controls the execution of the judgment. The CA’s decision, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, had only ordered HOLCIM to provide an accounting of royalties paid to de Guzman; it did not direct HOLCIM to pay a specific amount to the Esguerras. The RTC’s decision to conduct hearings and determine the exact amount of royalties, therefore, constituted an impermissible modification of the final judgment.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that while Sections 36 and 37 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court allow for the examination of a judgment obligor’s property and income, these provisions are only applicable when the judgment remains unsatisfied. The Court said, “The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned orders without giving HOLCIM the chance to be heard.” Here, the original judgment only required an accounting, not a direct payment from HOLCIM to the Esguerras. The trial court should have facilitated the accounting of payments made by HOLCIM to de Guzman, not imposed a new monetary liability on HOLCIM.

The Supreme Court further clarified the appropriate procedure when a third party, such as HOLCIM, denies indebtedness to the judgment obligor. Section 43, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides a clear pathway.

SEC. 43. Proceedings when indebtedness denied or another person claims the property.— If it appears that a person or corporation, alleged to have property of the judgment obligor or to be indebted to him, claims an interest in the property adverse to him or denies the debt, the court may authorize, by an order made to that effect, the judgment obligee to institute an action against such person or corporation for the recovery of such interest or debt, forbid a transfer or other disposition of such interest or debt within one hundred twenty (120) days from notice of the order, and may punish disobedience of such order as for contempt. Such order may be modified or vacated at any time by the court which issued it, or by the court in which the action is brought, upon such terms as may be just.

Under this rule, the court may authorize the judgment obligee (the Esguerras) to institute a separate action against the third party (HOLCIM) to recover the debt. It cannot, however, directly order the third party to pay the judgment obligee. The Court quoted Atilano II v. Asaali, stating that an “[e]xecution of a judgment can only be issued against one who is a party to the action, and not against one who, not being a party thereto, did not have his day in court. Due process dictates that a court decision can only bind a party to the litigation and not against innocent third parties.”

Lastly, the Court rejected the argument that HOLCIM had assumed de Guzman’s liabilities. There was no evidence to suggest that HOLCIM had agreed to assume all of de Guzman’s liabilities prior to the sale of the property. HOLCIM expressed willingness to pay royalties only to the rightful owner of the disputed area. Therefore, if the amount paid by HOLCIM to de Guzman is proven, de Guzman is ordered to turn over the payment to the petitioners.

In summary, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, emphasizing that the RTC had exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the final judgment. The RTC’s orders to pay P91,872,576.72 were nullified. The Court clarified the proper procedures for executing judgments, particularly concerning third-party indebtedness, and reiterated the principle that final judgments cannot be altered except for clerical errors.

FAQs

What was the central legal question in this case?	The central question was whether a trial court could modify a final judgment during its execution by determining and ordering payment of royalties not explicitly stated in the original judgment.
What did the Court of Appeals decide?	The Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court’s orders, finding that the RTC had exceeded its authority by modifying the final judgment.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that the RTC’s orders were issued in excess of its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reiterated that final judgments cannot be altered except for clerical errors.
Can a court modify a final judgment during execution?	No, a court cannot alter or modify a final judgment during execution, except to correct clerical errors. The dispositive portion of the decision controls the execution of the judgment.
What is the proper procedure when a third party denies indebtedness to a judgment obligor?	According to Section 43, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the court may authorize the judgment obligee to institute a separate action against the third party to recover the debt. The court cannot directly order the third party to pay the judgment obligee.
Was HOLCIM required to pay the Esguerras directly based on the original judgment?	No, the original judgment only required HOLCIM to provide an accounting of royalties paid to de Guzman. It did not direct HOLCIM to pay a specific amount to the Esguerras.
What happens if the petitioners believe HOLCIM owes them more than what was paid to de Guzman?	The petitioners cannot rely on the CA’s decision affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 120004 to claim additional royalties. They must pursue a separate action for this purpose.
What was the significance of HOLCIM’s willingness to pay royalties to the rightful owner?	HOLCIM’s expression of willingness to pay royalties to the rightful owner did not preclude them from questioning the court’s jurisdiction or the modification of the final judgment during execution.

This case serves as a clear reminder of the limits of judicial authority during the execution of judgments. It reinforces the principle that final judgments must be implemented according to their terms, without alteration or modification. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that parties can rely on the finality of court decisions and that trial courts do not exceed their jurisdiction during the execution phase.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: LIGAYA ESGUERRA, LOWELL ESGUERRA AND LIESELL ESGUERRA, VS. HOLCIM PHILIPPINES, INC., G.R. No. 182571, September 02, 2013