G.R. No. L-17834; September 29, 1962
PHILIPPINE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, GONZALO DEL ROSARIO and ELEUTERIO AGUIRRE, petitioners, vs. THE HON. PATRICIO C. CENIZA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, THE CLERK OF COURT, THE SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA and EMIGDIO C. SERNA, respondents.

FACTS

The Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental rendered a judgment in 1955 ordering the defendants (now petitioners) to pay plaintiff Emigdio C. Serna a principal sum, moral damages, attorney’s fees, plus 6% interest from the date the complaint was filed. This judgment was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals in 1959. Upon finality, a writ of execution was issued. The petitioners moved to amend this writ, arguing that the interest should not be computed on the moral damages and attorney’s fees, and that the interest should run only from the filing of an amended complaint, not the original one.
The trial court granted the amendment regarding the principal sum but denied the two other corrections. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was also denied. They then filed this petition for certiorari, alleging that the trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to exclude interest on damages and attorney’s fees and in computing interest from the date of the original complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to amend the writ of execution regarding the computation of interest.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The ruling is anchored on the doctrine of res judicata. The final and executory judgment of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision in its entirety, is conclusive not only on matters actually adjudged but also on every matter that could have been raised therein. The petitioners’ objections regarding the proper computation of interest—specifically, whether it should attach to moral damages and attorney’s fees and from what date it should run—were issues that could and should have been raised during the appeal from the trial court’s original judgment. By failing to do so and allowing the decision to become final, they are now barred from challenging it at the execution stage.
Furthermore, the Court held that the amended complaint, which merely amplified the items of damages, did not introduce a new cause of action. Therefore, it related back to the original complaint, making the date of its filing the correct starting point for the computation of interest as specified in the final judgment. The Court also noted equitable considerations, pointing out the petitioners’ prolonged stalling of a debt long due to a creditor with a desperately ill wife. Thus, the trial court’s orders conforming to the final judgment were proper and within its discretion.