In Philippine remedial law, the issuance of a Writ of Execution signifies that a judgment has become final and executory. It is the "fruit" of the litigation—the moment when the court’s decision is put into motion to satisfy a claim. However, the law provides a narrow window for a party to challenge this stage through a Motion for Reconsideration (MR).
While a final judgment generally cannot be modified (the doctrine of immutability of judgment), a Motion for Reconsideration against a Writ of Execution is a specific remedy used when the writ itself is flawed or does not conform to the judgment it seeks to enforce.
1. Legal Basis and Nature
Under the Rules of Court, specifically Rule 39 (Execution, Satisfaction, and Effect of Judgments), the execution must strictly conform to every particular of the dispositive portion of the decision.
A Motion for Reconsideration in this context is not a second chance to argue the merits of the main case. Instead, it is a challenge to the regularity of the issuance of the writ or its compliance with the decision.
2. Valid Grounds for Filing
You cannot file an MR simply because you disagree with the original decision. The court will generally only entertain the motion based on the following:
- Non-conformity with the Decision: The writ directs the sheriff to do something not stated in the "fallo" (dispositive portion) of the judgment.
- Improvisation/Ambiguity: The writ is vague or attempts to enforce a part of the decision that is not yet demandable.
- Novation of the Judgment: The parties entered into a new agreement (compromise) after the judgment was rendered but before execution, making the writ unnecessary or incorrect.
- Change in Circumstances: Supervening events have occurred after the judgment became final that make execution unjust or impossible (e.g., the property to be seized was destroyed by a fortuity).
- Lack of Due Process: The writ was issued ex-parte (without notice) in instances where notice was required, or the motion for execution was filed after the five-year period for execution by motion had lapsed.
3. The Procedural Workflow
The process typically follows these steps:
- Notice of the Writ: The losing party (Judgment Obligor) usually receives a copy of the Writ of Execution or a Notice to Pay/Vacate from the Sheriff.
- Timeline: While the Rules of Court do not explicitly state a specific "15-day" rule for MRs against interlocutory orders like a writ, it is standard practice to file it within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the writ to avoid the claim of laches or delay.
- Filing and Service: The motion must be filed in the same court that issued the writ. It must be served to the opposing party (Judgment Obligee) to satisfy the requirement of due process.
- The "Litigous" Nature: This motion must be set for hearing. The movant must provide the date and time when the court will hear the motion, giving the other side a chance to oppose it.
4. Important Limitations and Effects
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Stay of Execution | Filing an MR against a Writ of Execution does not automatically stay (stop) the execution. To stop the Sheriff, the movant usually needs to apply for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or an Injunction, or post a Supersedeas Bond. |
| Prohibited Motions | If the case is under Summary Procedure, a Motion for Reconsideration is generally a prohibited pleading. However, courts sometimes allow it if the issue is the legality of the execution itself rather than the judgment. |
| Finality | If the MR is denied, the next step is typically a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65), alleging grave abuse of discretion, as orders regarding execution are generally not appealable. |
5. Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- Attacking the Merits: Many litigants fail because they try to re-argue why they should have won the case. The court will summarily deny these arguments under the principle of res judicata.
- Lack of Affidavit of Merit: If the motion is based on "supervening events," it should be supported by affidavits and evidence to prove those new facts to the court.
- Failure to Notify the Sheriff: Simply filing the motion does not mean the Sheriff knows. A copy of the filed motion (received by the court) should be furnished to the Office of the Sheriff to put them on notice of the pending dispute.
6. The "Supervening Event" Exception
One of the most powerful reasons for an MR against execution is the Supervening Event. This refers to a fact that transpired after the judgment became final which changes the relationships of the parties such that enforcing the original judgment would be a manifest injustice.
Example: In an ejectment case, if the defendant subsequently buys the property from the plaintiff after the judgment but before the writ is executed, the execution of the eviction becomes moot.
Summary Checklist for the Practitioner
- Verify if the Writ matches the dispositive portion of the decision exactly.
- Identify if five years have passed since the entry of judgment (if so, execution must be by Action for Revival of Judgment).
- Prepare the Motion with a specific Notice of Hearing.
- Evaluate if a Supersedeas Bond is necessary to halt the Sheriff’s immediate actions.
- Ensure the motion is filed in the correct branch (the court of origin).