1) What a “Writ of Execution” Is (and What It Is Not)

A writ of execution is a court process directing the sheriff or other proper executing officer to enforce a judgment or final order—typically by collecting money, delivering property, ejecting an occupant, or compelling/recording compliance in a manner allowed by procedural rules.

It is not the judgment itself. The judgment declares rights and obligations; the writ is the enforcement instrument.

It is also not issued by the sheriff. The sheriff implements the writ; the court (through its judge and clerk) issues it.

2) The Core Rule: Which Court Has Authority to Issue

A. The issuing authority is primarily the court that rendered the judgment

Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, execution generally proceeds from the court of origin—the court that rendered the judgment or final order.

Practical meaning: If the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decided the case, the writ typically issues from that RTC; if the Municipal Trial Court (MTC/MeTC/MCTC) decided the case, it issues from that MTC/MeTC/MCTC.

B. When a case is on appeal, the authority can shift depending on where the records are

The Rules recognize that once an appeal is perfected and the records are with the appellate court, the power to issue the writ may be affected by where the case is pending and what stage it is in. In practice:

Execution as a rule requires a final and executory judgment.
Execution pending appeal (discretionary) may be issued by the trial court in proper instances and upon compliance with requirements (see Part 6).

As a working guide: the court that currently has jurisdiction over the case/records for the purpose of execution is the court that can issue the writ, subject to the Rules and the nature of the execution sought.

3) The Key Actors: Judge vs. Clerk of Court

In Philippine court practice, a writ of execution is commonly described as being issued by the court, but procedurally it is produced and released through two linked authorities:

A. The Judge (or the Court itself) — the source of authority

The writ issues by virtue of the court’s authority. Many writs are issued as a ministerial consequence of a final and executory judgment (once prerequisites are met), but the authority remains judicial.

For execution pending appeal, the judge exercises discretion and must find good reasons stated in an order.
For post-judgment incidents (e.g., quashal of writ, third-party claims, clarification of judgment, satisfaction issues), the judge resolves them.

B. The Clerk of Court — the officer who formally issues the writ as process of the court

As a matter of court process, writs are typically issued by the Clerk of Court (or Branch Clerk of Court) under the seal of the court, pursuant to the court’s authority/order and the Rules.

Bottom line:

Judicial authority: the court/judge
Formal issuance as court process: the clerk of court (as the court’s ministerial issuing officer)

4) Courts That Can Issue Writs of Execution (Philippine Context)

Because a writ of execution enforces a judgment, courts that render judgments generally have authority to cause execution of their own decisions, including:

A. First-level courts

MTC / MeTC / MCTC: writs to execute their judgments (e.g., ejectment, collection within jurisdictional limits, small claims outcomes—subject to governing rules).

B. Second-level courts

RTC: writs to execute RTC judgments (civil, criminal aspects as allowed, special proceedings).

C. Appellate courts (as appropriate)

Court of Appeals (CA), Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), and Supreme Court (SC) may issue processes to enforce their judgments consistent with their rules and practice—often implemented through coordination with the proper executing officers and, in many scenarios, through the court of origin when implementation is local and fact-intensive.

Important practical point: Even when an appellate court’s decision is the one being enforced, execution often occurs at the level of the court of origin after remand, because implementation typically requires sheriff action, hearings on satisfaction, third-party claims, and similar incidents best handled by trial courts.

5) “Issuance” vs. “Implementation”: Who Does What

A. Who issues?

The Court, typically through the Clerk of Court/Branch Clerk of Court, pursuant to the judge’s authority/order and the Rules of Court.

B. Who implements?

The Sheriff (or proper executing officer) enforces the writ: levies on property, conducts sale, collects sums, restores possession, etc.

C. Who cannot issue?

Sheriffs (they implement, they do not issue)
Lawyers, parties, barangay officials, prosecutors (unless acting within a specific quasi-judicial enforcement framework that expressly authorizes issuance)
Administrative agencies that are not granted execution powers by law/rules (they may need court assistance for enforcement)

6) When Issuance Is Ministerial vs. Discretionary (Why This Matters)

A. Execution of a final and executory judgment (generally ministerial)

Once a judgment becomes final and executory, issuance of a writ of execution is generally treated as a ministerial duty of the court—meaning the prevailing party is entitled to it as a matter of right, subject to compliance with procedural requirements (proper motion, payment of fees, etc.) and absent legal impediments (e.g., satisfaction, supervening events that legally bar execution, or void judgment issues raised in proper mode).

B. Execution pending appeal (discretionary)

Rule 39 allows execution pending appeal in proper cases. It is not a matter of right. Typically required:

A motion
Notice and hearing
Good reasons stated in a special order
Often a bond (depending on the nature of the judgment and the rule/practice applicable)

Because the decision is not yet final, the judge must justify why immediate execution is warranted.

7) Territorial Reach: Which Court Issues When Enforcement Is Elsewhere

A recurring practical issue is where the property/defendant is located.

The writ is issued by the proper issuing court, but it may be implemented outside the branch’s immediate locality through coordination mechanisms recognized by the Rules and court practice (e.g., endorsement/assistance by the proper sheriff or court in the place where levy or enforcement will occur).
The key idea is that the issuing authority remains the court, while implementation must respect territorial and administrative arrangements for sheriffs and courts.

8) Special Types of Writs Connected to Execution

A. Alias Writ of Execution

If the writ is returned unsatisfied (in whole or in part), the court may issue an alias writ to continue enforcement.

Who issues it: the same court (through the clerk, under court authority), upon proper motion/grounds.

B. Writ of Possession / Demolition (related but distinct)

In some cases (foreclosure, land registration, ejectment enforcement), the court may issue writs that effectively enforce possession. They are not always labeled “writ of execution” but function as enforcement processes.

Who issues: the court with authority over the proceeding, typically through the clerk under judicial authority.

C. Garnishment and Levy in Aid of Execution

These are modes of implementation under Rule 39 rather than separate issuing authorities. The writ of execution authorizes the sheriff to proceed with these measures, often with further court supervision when disputes arise.

9) Quasi-Judicial Bodies: Can They “Issue” Writs of Execution?

In Philippine law, some quasi-judicial bodies are expressly granted authority to issue writs (or their functional equivalents) to enforce their decisions within their jurisdiction and under their own procedural rules.

A. Labor cases (illustrative)

In the labor system, writs of execution are issued under the labor adjudication framework (e.g., by the Labor Arbiter or the Commission, depending on the rules in force), implemented by labor sheriffs/officers, and governed by labor procedural rules.

B. When court intervention is needed

If a tribunal lacks statutory authority to issue enforceable writs (or if enforcement requires acts beyond its mechanisms), enforcement may require resort to regular courts using the appropriate procedural vehicles.

Takeaway: Not all “writs of execution” come from regular courts, but in “Philippine courts” strictly speaking, issuance is by the court that has authority over the judgment and its enforcement.

10) Criminal Cases: Execution Is Different in Form

In criminal proceedings, “execution” typically concerns:

Service of sentence (imprisonment) handled through commitment orders and corrections processes; and/or
Civil liability, fines, restitution, which may be enforced using mechanisms akin to civil execution depending on the nature of the award and the governing rules.

The general principle remains: the court that rendered the dispositive ruling issues the enforceable processes, and the proper officers implement them.

11) Common Procedural Requirements Before a Writ Issues (Regular Court Practice)

While details vary by case type and local practice, the usual prerequisites include:

A judgment or final order capable of execution
Finality (unless execution pending appeal is allowed and properly granted)
Entry of judgment (common in practice as proof of finality)
Motion for execution (execution is usually by motion; some judgments are immediately executory by rule)
Payment of lawful fees / sheriff’s fees and expenses as required
Draft writ may be required by some branches as a practical filing step (still issued only upon court authority)

12) Practical “Answer” in One Line (Without Losing Legal Accuracy)

A writ of execution in Philippine court litigation is issued by the court with authority to enforce the judgment—typically the court of origin—formally released through the Clerk of Court/Branch Clerk under the court’s authority, and implemented by the sheriff or proper executing officer.