By motion or independent action | How a judgment is executed | Execution, Satisfaction, and Effect of Judgments (RULE 39) | CIVIL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion under Philippine law—particularly the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended—on the execution of judgments by motion or by independent action (Rule 39). I have endeavored to be both meticulous and straightforward, covering all the crucial points, time periods, procedural nuances, and jurisprudential guidance.

I. OVERVIEW OF RULE 39: EXECUTION, SATISFACTION, AND EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS

When a court’s judgment or final order becomes final and executory, the prevailing party is entitled to have it executed. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (1997, as amended) governs the mechanics by which final judgments are enforced or satisfied. Among its most critical provisions are those that address:

  1. When a judgment may be executed (Sections 1–5),
  2. How a judgment may be executed (Sections 6–9), and
  3. The effect of judgments, including how they may be satisfied and how any third-party claims are addressed (Sections 10–21).

This discussion focuses on Sections 6 and 6-related provisions dealing with the mode of execution:

“A final and executory judgment or order may be executed (a) by motion, within five (5) years from the date of its entry, or (b) by independent action, after the lapse of the five-year period but within the time limits allowed by law.”

II. EXECUTION BY MOTION

A. General Rule: Execution as a Matter of Right within Five Years

  1. Five-Year Period from Date of Entry

    • Section 6, Rule 39 (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) provides that a party may enforce a final judgment as a matter of right by filing a motion for execution within five (5) years from the date of its entry in the Book of Entries of Judgment.
    • “Entry of judgment” occurs only once the judgment has become final (i.e., no further appeal or review is possible), and the clerk of court records it in the Book of Entries of Judgment.

  2. Meaning of ‘As a Matter of Right’

    • If the motion is filed within the 5-year period, the court has a ministerial duty to grant the motion, provided all requirements are met (i.e., the judgment is indeed final and executory, no supervening event, etc.).
    • The court generally may not look into the merits of the case anymore or alter the substance of the judgment.

  3. Examples of Situations

    • If a party obtained a money judgment on January 15, 2020, and it was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment on March 1, 2020, the prevailing party has until March 1, 2025, to file a motion for execution as a matter of right.

  4. Supervening Events

    • Even when within the five-year period, the court may inquire if there exist “supervening events” (e.g., a compromise, partial satisfaction, or any fact that would render execution unjust or impossible) that could affect the manner, extent, or feasibility of execution.
    • However, absent such supervening events, the court must issue the writ of execution.

B. After the Five-Year Period: No Longer by Motion

  1. Loss of the Right to Execution by Motion

    • Once the 5-year period from entry lapses, the judgment effectively becomes dormant.
    • Execution can no longer be obtained simply by filing a motion in the original case.

  2. Rationale

    • The law aims to balance the right of the judgment creditor to execute the judgment and the need for stability in judicial proceedings.
    • The dormancy concept exists to encourage timely enforcement and prevent indefinite dragging on of litigation.

III. EXECUTION BY INDEPENDENT ACTION

A. Revival of Judgment Through Ordinary Civil Action

  1. Main Provision

    • Section 6, Rule 39 provides that if the judgment is not executed within the five-year period by motion, it may be enforced “by action” before the judgment is barred by the statute of limitations.
    • In the Philippines, the prescriptive period for an action upon a judgment is generally ten (10) years from finality (Article 1144 of the Civil Code).

  2. How It Works

    • After the five-year period but before the total 10-year period runs, the judgment creditor files a new, separate civil action—often referred to as an “action to revive the judgment” or “action for revival of judgment.”
    • The new suit is not a relitigation of the merits; it is merely a proceeding to confirm the existence of a still valid but dormant judgment and ask the court to issue a new judgment that can again be enforced by motion.

  3. Effect of Revival

    • If granted, the new judgment “revives” the original liability and can be enforced again as a matter of right by motion within five (5) years from the new judgment’s finality (and so forth if necessary).

  4. Procedure in an Independent Action

    • Pleadings: The plaintiff (judgment creditor) files a complaint stating the essential facts: the prior judgment, its finality, its entry date, the reasons for non-execution within five years, and the fact that the judgment remains unsatisfied in whole or in part.
    • Evidence: Certified true copies of the original judgment, entry of judgment, and proof that it remains unsatisfied are typically presented.
    • Defense: The defendant (judgment debtor) may not re-litigate the merits of the original case; defenses are generally limited to showing that the judgment is no longer enforceable (e.g., prescription, satisfaction, release, discharge, or supervening invalidity).
    • New Judgment: If the court is satisfied that the prior judgment remains enforceable (i.e., no prescription, no supervening event that nullifies it, etc.), it renders a new judgment that is itself subject to execution by motion (again, within five years from its entry).

IV. TIMELINES AND PRESCRIPTION

  1. 5-Year Period for Execution by Motion

    • Counted from the date of entry of the judgment in the original case.

  2. 10-Year Prescriptive Period for the Action on the Judgment

    • Counted from the finality of the original judgment, in general, under Article 1144(3) of the Civil Code.
    • Note: Case law clarifies that if a motion for execution was made within the five-year window, it stops the running of prescription. But once the motion is denied or not acted upon, the counting may resume.

  3. Dormancy of Judgment

    • After five years without execution, the judgment becomes “dormant,” and a new action is required to revive it.
    • If no action is taken to revive the judgment within the applicable 10-year prescriptive period (counted from finality), the judgment is barred forever, and can no longer be enforced.

V. PROCEDURAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Precision in Computation of Periods

    • Lawyers must meticulously track the dates of finality and entry of judgment. Any delay beyond five years bars execution by motion.
    • If nearing the five-year mark, counsel should either file the motion for execution promptly or consider filing an action for revival (if the 5-year period has already expired).

  2. Duty to Client

    • Under the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 18), a lawyer must serve their client with competence and diligence. Allowing the five-year period to lapse without action can expose a lawyer to potential liability for malpractice or negligence.

  3. Avoiding Frivolous Delay

    • Lawyers representing judgment debtors must ensure any opposition to the motion for execution is grounded on genuine supervening events or satisfaction of judgment. Frivolous motions for reconsideration or other dilatory tactics contravene ethical obligations.

  4. Post-Judgment Remedies

    • Even if the judgment has become final, parties may still seek (in extraordinary cases) relief such as a petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38) or other equitable remedies if strict requirements are met (e.g., extrinsic fraud).
    • These, however, do not typically prevent the issuance of a writ of execution unless the court issues an injunctive order or TRO.

  5. Legal Forms

    • Typical Form for a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution includes:
      • Caption indicating the court and case number,
      • Brief statement that judgment has become final and executory,
      • Date of entry of judgment,
      • Prayer for the issuance of the writ of execution.
    • Typical Complaint for Revival of Judgment includes:
      • Jurisdictional averments (proper court, parties’ addresses),
      • Allegation of the prior judgment’s existence, finality, and date of entry,
      • Statement that the 5-year period to enforce by motion lapsed,
      • Prayer for the revival of the judgment and issuance of a new one.

VI. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE

  1. Heirs of Maing vs. Court of Appeals – Clarifies that an action for revival of judgment does not re-open the issues but merely enforces the still valid but dormant judgment.
  2. Ching vs. Family Foods Mfg. – Emphasizes the mandatory character of issuing a writ of execution filed within five years from entry.
  3. Macondray & Co. Inc. vs. Del Rosario – Reiterates that once the judgment becomes final, the court cannot alter the same; execution is a matter of right within the five-year period.
  4. Ong v. Tating – Explains how partial satisfaction and other “supervening events” may affect the scope or manner of execution, though not the right to execution if timely filed.

These cases (and many others) underscore the Supreme Court’s position that execution is the fruit and end of the suit. Courts must protect the successful party’s right to enjoy the judgment secured, while balancing concerns on fairness and finality.

VII. KEY TAKEAWAYS AND PRACTICAL POINTERS

  1. File Early: If you are a judgment creditor, do not wait until the fifth year to move for execution. Delays can cause inadvertent lapses and dormancy.
  2. Check the Records: Always confirm the precise date of the entry of judgment from the clerk of court’s records. Computation errors can be fatal.
  3. Independent Action: If for any reason more than five years have elapsed, consider filing a complaint for revival of judgment, provided that it is still within the 10-year prescriptive period.
  4. No Second Bite at the Merits: The revival suit does not re-open the controversy; it merely establishes a new judgment that reaffirms the original liability.
  5. Ethical Diligence: Counsel must act promptly and competently to protect client interests, mindful of statutory deadlines and proper forms.

VIII. CONCLUSION

Under Philippine civil procedure (Rule 39), execution of a final judgment is generally pursued by motion within five (5) years from entry. If the 5-year period lapses and the judgment remains unsatisfied, the prevailing party must resort to an independent action (revival of judgment) within the 10-year prescriptive period. Once revived, the judgment may again be executed by motion as a matter of right. Courts are enjoined to issue the writ of execution promptly if filed within the applicable periods, barring any proven supervening event.

These rules ensure certainty and finality in litigation while also providing the successful litigant an effective means to enforce his or her rights. Proper diligence in monitoring dates and strict compliance with the procedural steps is absolutely critical for both litigants and counsel to protect and realize the fruits of a favorable judgment.

Disclaimer: This discussion is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific cases or situations, it is advisable to consult legal counsel familiar with all the facts and current jurisprudence.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login