CASIANO MAGISTRADO, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SIMEON ENRILE TY-CANGCO, RESPONDENTS.

On April 9, 1952, Casiano Magistrado filed, with the Municipal Court of Naga
City, a complaint—docketed as Civil Case No. 486 of said court—against Simeon
Enrile Ty-Cangco for the recovery of P50 a month, as compensation for services
allegedly rendered to Ty-Cangco as guard or watcher of his logs from July 2,
1951 until relieved of his duties as such, aside from damages and costs. After
due trial, or on June 3, 1952, said court rendered judgment for Magistrado as
prayed for in the complaint, except as to damages, which were not awarded. On
January 21, 1953, the Municipal Judge of Naga City issued the corresponding writ
of execution, directing the city sheriff to satisfy out of Ty-Cangco’s
properties “the amount of said judgment and costs and interests thereon from
the date” thereof. Thereafter, the sheriff computed the amount due to
Magistrado from July 2, 1951 to January 21, 1953, at P50.00 a month, or P900.00,
aside from the sheriff fees, and, to obtain satisfaction thereof, sought to levy
upon the properties of Ty-Cangco.

Thereupon, or on January 30, 1953, Ty-Cangco instituted Civil Case No. 2334 of
the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, against the municipal judge and
the sheriff of Naga City, as well as against Magistrado, to restrain the
execution of the aforementioned decision, upon the ground that its execution
would work injustice to Ty-Cangco and violate his rights, that said decision is
indefinite and that the city sheriff has no authority to fix the amount due
thereon. On the same date, said court of first instance issued a writ of
preliminary injunction restraining the city sheriff “from continuing the
execution and/or attachment on the properties of * * * Ty-Cangco.” For reasons
not disclosed in the record, said Case No. 2334 remained undecided for several
years. After trial on the merits, or on March 31, 1958, said court of first
instance issued an “order” holding that the decision of the municipal court is
“indefinite, vague, and uncertain, and is impossible of execution”, and that the
complaint in said Civil Case No. 486 “was filed prematurely as there was no
cause of action yet against * * * Ty-Cangco, because the contract of employment
between * * * Magistrado and * * * Ty-Cangco was not yet terminated”, in view of
which the court of first instance prohibited and ordered the respondents in said
Case No. 2334, specially the sheriff of Naga City”, not to execute the judgment
in said Case No. 486, without costs.

On appeal from this order the Court of Appeals upheld the validity and
enforceability of the writ of execution in question insofar only as it sentences
Ty-Cangco to pay to Magistrado P50.00 a month from July 2, 1951 to May 31, 1952,
but. declared it “null and void”, and set it aside and vacated it, insofar as it
covers the period from June 1, 1952 “up to the time when “Magistrado” is
relieved as watchman of the logs” of Ty-Cangco, although without prejudice to
the former’s right to file the corresponding action against the latter for
salaries due, “if any,” during said period. The case is now before us on appeal
by certiorari taken by Magistrado from this decision of the Court of
Appeals.

The issue is whether or not the decision of the municipal court in Civil Case
No. 486, insofar as Magistrado’s compensation of P50.00 a month, from June 1,
1952 up to such time as he may be relieved of his duties as Ty-Cangco’s
watchman, is null and void. The Court of Appeals held the affirmative view, upon
two (2) grounds, namely: (1) when said decision was rendered, on June 3, 1952,
Magistrado’s cause of action for services rendered by him from June 1, 1952, had
not accrued as yet; and (2) the compensation for such services “was not in
issue in the case, and neither was it actually and necessarily adjudged in the
case”, for which reason the pronouncement in question “was in excess of the
court’s jurisdiction”, and, consequently, “can have no operative effect as a
binding judgment”, which was, therefore, “invalid”.

We do not share this view. Regardless of whether or not Magistrado had, on
June 3, 1952, a cause of action for services rendered by him subsequently to
June 1, 1952—or about the time of the rendition of the decision of the municipal
court—we hold that such factor did not and could not affect the validity of the
award for such services made in said decision, no matter how erroneous the same
may have been—on which we need not and do not express any opinion—since the
municipal court unquestionably had jurisdiction over the parties and over the
subject matter in litigation. Such errors, if any as may have been committed in
said decision could have been corrected by appeal to the court of first
instance. No such appeal having been taken by Ty-Cangco, the decision became
final and executory, and, hence, enforceable by writ of execution.

Moreover, Magistrado specifically alleged in his complaint in said Case No.
486, that he “continued watching and guarding” the logs of Ty-Cangco from “July
2, 1951 until today and until he is relieved” by Ty-Cangco from “said service”.
Magistrado, likewise, prayed, in said complaint, that Ty-Cangco be sentenced to
pay him the agreed compensation for his services, not only up to April 9, 1952,
the date of the filing of said pleading, but, also, “from April 10, 1952 until
he is relieved” by Ty-Cangco of the obligation to watch and guard said logs.
Hence, contrary to the finding made by the Court of Appeals, the compensation
for said services of Magistrado was in issue in the case, and the municipal
court did not exceed its jurisdiction in sentencing Ty-Cangco to pay him “Fifty
Pesos (P50.00) monthly from July 2, 1951 up to the date when” he “is relieved as
watchman of the logs” of Ty-Cangco, thus actually disposing of said issue.

Wherefore, the complaint in this case is dismissed and the decision of the
Court of Appeals, accordingly, modified. Moreover, the writ of preliminary
injunction issued by the court of first instance is hereby dissolved, with
costs against Simeon Enrile Ty-Cangco. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.