EUFEMIA A. CAMINO vs. ATTY. RYAN REY L. PASAGUI
A.C. No. 11095 January 31, 2017
Facts:
Complainant alleged that respondent violated their agreement for the latter to facilitate and secure a loan in order to finance the payment of necessary expenses to transfer the title of a certain property under her name. She claimed that respondent obtained a loan in her name and that of her husband, using their property as collateral, but Atty. Pasagui arrogated the proceeds thereof to himself.
In a Per Curiam Decision the Court, ruling in favor of the complainant, found that respondent was guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct for converting the money of his client to his own personal use without her consent.
By his failure to make good of their agreement to use the proceeds of the loan for the transfer of the title in complainant's name, Atty. Pasagui not only betrayed the trust and confidence reposed upon him by his client, but he is likewise guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. The Court affirmed the findings and conclusions of the IBP Board of Governors, but modified the recommended penalty and instead imposed the penalty to Disbarment.
The Court also ordered Atty. Pasagui to:
· Return the loan proceeds he received with interest
· together with all the documents pertinent to the loan application and those he received from the complainant.
In the present Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution, complainant now prays for the issuance of a Writ of Execution for the enforcement of the said judgment.
Issue:
1. Which court should issue the writ of execution
2. Who must execute it
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
Generally, once a judgment or order becomes final and executory, the judgment obligee may file a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution in the court of origin as provided for under Rule 39, Sec. 1, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution.
Likewise, a judgment or final order may also be executed pending appeal as provided for in Rule 39, Sec. 2.
Corollarily, judgments declared to be immediately executory, as in the present case, are enforceable after their rendition. Similar to judgments or orders that become final and executory, the execution of the decision in the case at bar is already a matter of right. The judgment obligee may, therefore, file a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution in the court of origin as provided for under Rule 39, Sec. 1, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
In this particular case, however, the case did not originate from the lower courts, but instead is an original action for disbarment filed by the complainant against Atty. Pasagui, accusing the latter of Estafa through Abuse of Confidence.
Consequently, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court should issue the Writ of Execution prayed for. But, in as much as this Court does not have a sheriff of its own to execute its own decision and considering that the complainant resides in Tacloban City, the Ex-Officio Sheriff of Tacloban City is directed to execute the money judgment against the respondent in accordance with Rule 39, Section 9 of the Rules of Court. Likewise, the Ex-Officio Sheriff of Tacloban City is ordered to enforce the Court's directive for respondent to return all the pertinent documents in his possession to the complainant pursuant to Section 11 of the Rules of Court.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment