ANTONIO FLOR MATA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. FAUSTINO LICHAUCO AND RAMON SALINAS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The above entitled cause has been standing for several years on the docket of
this court, and bears the oldest filing number on our general registry of
undisposed cases on appeal. The proceedings on appeal were suspended for some
time, by request of counsel, pending the result of other litigation; and the
result of that litigation being that neither party would seem to have any
substantial monetary interest in the final adjudication of this case on appeal,
counsel for both parties appear to have been willing to let this appeal lie here
indefinitely, without making any serious effort to have it brought on for
hearing and decision. It has finally been submitted, but only after this court,
of its own motion, required the plaintiff to take the necessary steps to that
end under penalty of dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute to
effect.

This action was instituted in the court below to recover damages for the
alleged unlawful intervention of the defendant in the proceedings had on a levy
of execution, to recover the amount of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
against defendant’s brother. At the time when this action was instituted, the
judgment under which the execution was levied had not become final and
unappealable; and since judgment was rendered in this case in the court below,
it would appear that the amount of the judgment entered in the former case in
favor of the plaintiff and against the brother of the defendant in this action
was reduced from P10,300 to P2,000 on appeal.

We are of the opinion, upon a review of the whole record, that the evidence
adduced at the trial of this action sustains the findings of the trial judge in
so far as he held that the defendant in this action unlawfully, and without just
cause, intervened in the proceedings had on plaintiff’s levy of execution, with
the result (as found by the trial judge) that whereas plaintiff’s levy should
have, and would have realized P10,050, which might have been applied to the
satisfaction of his original judgment in the former action for P10,300 and
costs, the levy in fact realized but P1,914; and, with the further result that
plaintiff was obliged to pay out some P287.17 for extraordinary expenses,
incurred as a result of the defendant’s illegal intervention in the
proceedings.

The trial court gave judgment for P8,423.17, the difference between the
amount which he found might have been realized on the levy (P10,050), and the
amount actually realized, less extraordinary expenses incurred in making the
levy.

It appears, however, that the plaintiff, in addition to the amount realized
on his levy of execution, had recovered from other sources some P892.12 which
should have been deducted from the amount of the judgment for damages. The true
measure of the damages to a judgment creditor resulting from an unlawful
intervention in proceedings had on the levy of execution on a money judgment
(such as was disclosed in the proceedings had in the case at bar) is not
necessarily the difference between the amount which would have been realized at
the execution sale but for the unlawful intervention, and the amount actually
realized, but rather, so much of that amount as is not in excess of the amount
which the judgment creditor was entitled to recover under his judgment. Since
the judgment creditor in the case at bar, in addition to the amount realized at
the execution sale, had recovered from other sources a substantial part of the
amount of his judgment, the measure of the damages suffered by him as a result
of the defendant’s unlawful intervention in the proceedings had on the levy of
execution, is the difference between the amount which would have been realized
but for this illegal intervention, and the total amount which he actually
recovered on the judgment from all sources, including the amount actually
realized at the execution sale, less extraordinary expenses necessarily incurred
as a result of the illegal intervention of the plaintiff in the levy of the
execution. It is evident, therefore, that judgment should have been entered in
the court below for the sum of P7,531.05, the judgment for P8,423.17, which was
entered there, having failed to take into account the amount recovered from
other sources than the sale of the execution property.

In the course of these proceedings on appeal, both parties for one purpose or
another, invited our attention to the record of the case in which the original
judgment was entered, which was brought here on appeal. Our judgment in that
case, on appeal, reduced the amount of the judgment entered in the court below
from P10,300 to P2,000. As we have seen, the plaintiff has already recovered
upon his judgment, first, P1,914 less P287.17, or P1,626.83 as actual, net
proceeds of the levy of execution, and second, P892.12 from other sources; in
all P2,518.95. Assuming, without deciding, that the costs of the litigation
arising out of the incident do not exceed the sum of P518.95 which plaintiff has
already recovered in excess of the amount of his final judgment, it follows,
that applying the measure of damages set out above, the plaintiff, who has in
fact recovered an amount in excess of the total judgment in the former case, as
finally determined by this court on appeal, would not appear to have suffered
any monetary damages, whatever as a result of the illegal intervention of the
defendant in the levy of the execution.

What has been said sufficiently explains why neither party appears to have
had any very keen interest in the outcome of this appeal since our judgment on
appeal was entered in the former case; and it accounts, in some sort, for the
fact that the parties permitted the record on appeal in this case to lie here so
long, without taking any effective measures looking to its final disposition on
the merits.

Upon the record as it now stands, we are unable, at this time, to make any
direct provision looking to the preservation of the right of the defendant to
restrain the levy of execution on the judgment entered herein, so as to give
effect to the change in the relations of the parties wrought by our reduction of
the amount of the judgment in the former action. The measures taken to that end,
by bringing to our attention the proceedings had on the appeal of the former
action, were so irregular and so inadequate, that we would not feel justified in
making any attempt to afford the relief to which the plaintiff would seem to be
entitled, in the uncertain light of the controlling facts as disclosed by the
record as it now stands. We are satisfied, however, that in the due
administration of justice, this case should not be permitted to lie any longer
upon the record of undisposed cases on appeal to this court, and that it will
make for the best interests of both parties and the speedy determination of,
this already long drawn out litigation, to proceed to judgment on the appeal in
this case without regard to the modification in the relations of the parties
resulting from the reduction, on appeal, of the judgment in the former action.
We deem it proper, nevertheless, to indicate that in so doing we are not
permitting mere technical questions of procedure to have the effect of securing
to the plaintiff a money judgment far in excess of that to which he appears to
be entitled, without giving to the defendant an opportunity to secure relief
from so much of that judgment as might be found to be excessive, on a full
review of the whole course of the litigation in the course of which this
judgment is entered. By the exercise of due diligence hereafter, the defendant
may relieve himself from recovery by execution of so much of this judgment as
may be found to be excessive as a result of the modification on appeal of the
former judgment pending the proceedings in this appeal. But lest any doubt might
arise hereafter as to whether the contentions of the parties in this regard have
been passed upon by this court in the course of the somewhat irregular
proceedings had on this appeal, our judgment in this case will be entered
without prejudice to the right of defendant to such relief therefrom as may be
proper in view of the modification by this court, of the judgment on appeal in
the former case. (Mata vs. Lichauco, R. G. No. 7119, Men. 17, 1913. Not
published.)

Having in mind the status of the record in this case, we have not deemed it
necessary to enter upon a prolonged discussion of the contentions of the parties
in their briefs on appeal. We think it sufficient, without ruling upon the
various questions of law and of fact raised by the briefs, to say that we have
carefully examined the whole record, and that we are satisfied that the
conclusions of fact and law set forth in the opinion of the trial judge are
supported by the record to the extent, at least, that is necessary to sustain
his ultimate conclusions that the defendant unlawfully intervened in the
proceedings had on the levy of execution on the former judgment, and that as a
consequence of that unlawful intervention the amount realized by the levy of
execution was only P1,914, whereas, but for the defendant’s unlawful
intervention, it would have been P10,050.

We conclude that the judgment entered in the court below, modified by
substituting P7,531.05 as the amount of the damages which should be allowed in
lieu of P8,423.17, the amount allowed in the judgment, should be affirmed, but
without prejudice to the right of the defendant to such relief therefrom as may
be proper in view of the modification by this court of the judgment on appeal in
the case of Mata vs. Lichauco, supra. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., did not take part.