LEANDRO ALAZAS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. BERNARDO LL. SALAS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 8 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU AND ROSARIO MERCADER, RESPONDENTS.

In an action for damages arising from libel filed by Rosario
Mercader in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu against Leandro Alazas and Dioscoro
Lazaro, a decision was rendered on November 4, 1982 ordering said defendants to
pay plaintiff solidarily the sums of P200,000.00 moral damages, P10,000.00
attorney’s fees, P5,000.00 litigation expenses and costs.  On appeal to the Intermediate Appellate
Court,* the decision was modified in that the case against
Dioscoro Lazaro was dismissed but the decision was affirmed with costs against
Leandro Alazas.  When the case was
elevated to this Court, the decision was modified by way of a reduction of the
moral damages to P50,000.00 in a resolution dated September 28, 1987.

Upon motion of plaintiff
on March 7, 1988
the trial court issued an order of execution of said final judgment.  The deputy provincial sheriff garnished the
shares of defendant Alazas in Gala Inc. on March 16, 1988. 
Marilou Valmores, cashier of Gala Inc. informed the sheriff that as of October
17, 1982 Alazas had
only one (1) share at a par value of P100.00.

Nevertheless, the sheriff
issued the notice of sale at public auction of the shares of Alazas in Gala
Inc.  On March 29, 1988, plaintiff Mercader submitted a bid of P47,400.00 for 1,580 shares of Alazas in Gala Inc. and it was
awarded to her.  The sheriff issued a
certificate of sale on March 30, 1988 in her favor in partial satisfaction of the
judgment.  On April 4, 1988, Gloria
Alazas, corporate secretary of Gala Inc. wrote the sheriff that defendant
Alazas had only one (1) share as he had disposed of his 1,580 shares in Gala
Inc.

On April 6,
1988 a second Notice
of Levy and Execution was issued by the sheriff on the basis of records showing
that Alazas has 16,000 unissued shares in Gala Inc.  A second Notice of Sale on Public Auction was
published by the sheriff which was scheduled for April
14, 1988 from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.  On April 8,
1988 Gloria Alazas
wrote to the sheriff, copy furnished the SEC, informing him that Alazas had
only one (1) share in the corporation since December 1983.  Nevertheless, the public auction proceeded
where Mercader bidded for 803 shares of stock of Alazas for P24,090.00. On April 15, 1988 the corresponding certificate of sale
thereof was issued by the sheriff in favor of Mercader.

On May 6, 1988 Mercader
wrote the President and Board of Directors of Gala Inc. informing them of the
two (2) auction sales where she acquired sufficient shares of stocks of Leandro
Alazas to become a majority stockholder of the corporation.  On the same day, he wrote Mr. Axel Alazas,
secretary of Gala Inc., to furnish him copies of the minutes of the board
meetings during the year as well as the stockholders’ meetings for 1988.

On May 24, 1988 Mercader
filed a motion for examination of Alazas in the trial court stating that except
for the 1,580 shares of stocks of Alazas in Gala Inc. which was sold to
Mercader by the sheriff for P47,400.00 in partial satisfaction of the judgment,
no other personal or real properties could be found by the sheriff which
plaintiff believes defendant Alazas has cleverly hidden/concealed so that he
asks that Alazas be made to appear to be examined under oath as to his property
and source of income in accordance with Section 39 of Rule 39, Rules of
Court.  The motion was granted on the
same day so the examination of the defendant was scheduled for May 30,
1988.  However, because of the absence of defendant
on said date, the examination was rescheduled on June 6, 1988 at 8:30 A.M.  A subpoena
duces tecum was also issued to Gloria Alazas, Atty. Deen and Axel
Alazas, cashier, treasurer and assistant treasurer, respectively, of Gala Enterprises
to bring along with them the minutes of meetings of the stockholders and board
of directors, stock and transfer books, and financial statement with balance
sheet of said enterprise.

Defendant Alazas filed a
motion for reconsideration alleging that upon full satisfaction of the judgment
by the writ of execution and by the entry of judgment, the trial court has lost
jurisdiction over the case except as to its ministerial function relating to
the issuance of the writ of execution thus the trial court has lost
jurisdiction to act further on the case. 
An opposition thereto was filed by counsel for plaintiff.  The motion was denied in an order dated June 6, 1988 and the
examination of the defendant was
reset for June 20, 1988 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning, the trial court taking
note of the statement made by Marilou Valmores, cashier of Gala Inc., that as
of October 17, 1982 Leandro Alazas owned only one (1) share of stock worth
P100.00.

Hence, the herein
petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the issuance
of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction filed by
Alazas wherein it is alleged that the judgment of the trial court as modified
by the Supreme Court having become final and executory, the trial court has
lost jurisdiction over the case except as to the ministerial act of ordering
the execution of the judgment.  Alazas also argues that the judgment having been satisfied, the case is now
beyond review.  On the basis thereof
petitioner seeks to restrain the trial court from conducting its examination of
petitioner as a judgment debtor and to annul all proceedings
and orders issued in connection therewith.

On June 29,
1988, without giving
due course to the petition, the Court required respondents to comment thereon within ten (10) days from notice.  The Court also resolved to issue a temporary
restraining order enjoining the trial court judge from proceeding in any manner
with the incident dealt with in his order dated June 6, 1988 or otherwise enforcing said order or orders
relative to the same incident in Civil Case No. R16623.

The comment having been
filed and petitioner not having filed its reply as required by the Court, the
case is now submitted for decision.

The petition is devoid of
merit.  It is true that when a judgment
has become final and executory all that is left of the trial court is the
ministerial act of ordering the execution of the judgment and that after such
judgment has been fully satisfied, the case is deemed terminated
once and for all.  However, in this case,
while it appears that after two (2) public auction sales of the alleged shares
of stock of petitioner in Gala Inc. had been undertaken wherein private
respondent was the successful bidder so that the judgment was deemed fully
satisfied, it nevertheless appears from the repeated representations of certain
officers of Gala Inc., that he owns only one (1) share of stock worth P100.00
in Gala Inc..  If this is so then there
is every reason for the private respondent to ask the trial court to issue the
order for the examination of the petitioner as judgment debtor under Section 39
of Rule 39, Rules of Court, so that the trial court may determine if there are any credits, money and property of the judgment debtor in the
possession or control of such person, corporation or legal entity that may answer for the unsatisfied judgment.

It is of no moment if there was an error in the reference by the
trial court to Gala Enterprises which is a non-existent corporation, as
it is a clerical error, referring in fact to Gala Inc.

The situation in this case is paradoxical in that while
petitioner claims that the judgment has been fully satisfied, on the other hand
the representatives of Gala Inc. assert that he had only one (1) share left to
his name when the judgment was executed, thus the judgment against him remains
unsatisfied.  The pretension that his
shares of stock have been sold may be a ruse or clever scheme in order to evade the execution of the judgment
thereon.  The examination of petitioner
as judgment debtor is in order.  This
process is within the competence of the trial court even as the judgment had
become final as it is his duty to see
to it that the judgment is fully
satisfied.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED with costs against
petitioner.  The restraining order issued
by this Court on June 29, 1988
is hereby lifted.  This judgment is
immediately executory.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Associate Justice
Marcelino R. Veloso and concurred in by Associate Justices Porfirio V. Sison,
Abdulwahid A. Bidin and Ramon B. Britanico.