CENTRAL SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY VS.

PLANTERS FACTS: Ernesto Olson entered into a dealership agreement with Resp. Planters whereby he agreed to purchase in cash or credit Fertili!ers and agri. Chemicals "or resale. To secure Olson#s "aith"ul compliance o" his obligations $ista Surety and Petitioner e%ecuted a surety underta&ing in "a'or o" the RESPO()E(T. Olson "ailed to pay Resp. a"ter se'eral deli'eries. On respondents demand to $ista * Central as Olson#s sureties both re"used to settle their liabilities to Planters. Resp. "iled an action "or collection o" sum o" money against Olson $ista and Central in the RTC o" +a&ati. Summons were ser'ed e%cept to Olson. TC: "ound Petitioner and $ista ,-A.,E to respondent. CA: dismissed Petitioners appeal "or "ailure to pay doc&et "ees: dismissal became "inal and e%ecutory/ entry o" 0udgement "ollowed. Respondent "iled in RTC a +OT-O( FOR E1EC2T-O( OF 32)4+E(T. RTC issued the writ howe'er it was not implemented so respondent "iled an e%parte motion "or issuance o" an alias writ o" e%ecution thich was granted by TC. Petitioner "iled a 5'ery urgent motion to set aside the CA resolution and to re6open appeal with prayer "or preliminary in0unction7TRO with the CA. CA issued resolution restraining the en"orcement o" the writ li"ted TRO and dismissed Petitioner#s urgent motion. On Petitoners appeal to SC 'is Petition "or Certiorari: )-S+-SSE) which became "inal. 8 years "rom entry o" 0udgment o" RTC#s decision RESPO()E(T "iled another motion "or issuance o" alias writ o" e%ecution in the TC which was 4RA(TE). Petitioner#s +R denied. CA: special ci'il action "or certiorari: gra'e abuse o" discretion on the part o" the RTC 0udge "or issuing the writ despite the "act that more than 9 years has lapsed since it became "inal and e%ecutory. )-S+-SSE) "or lac& o" merit. +R denied. :ence this petition.

ISSUE: ;O( the e%ecution o" a "inal 0udgment may be made by mere motion despite the lapse o" 9 years< HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. Under Rule 39, se . !, "#e rule $s "#%" % &$n%l 'ud()en" )%* +e e,e u"ed +* )ere )-"$-n .$"#$n &$/e *e%rs &r-) "#e d%"e -& en"r* -& 'ud()en". H-.e/er, "#e rule $s n-" %+s-lu"e %nd %d)$"s -ne n-"%+le e, e0"$-n %nd "#%" $s .#en "#e del%* $n en&-r $n( "#e 'ud()en" $s %used +* "#e 0%r"* %ss%$l$n( "#e &$l$n( -& "#e )-"$-n. The present case "alls within the e%ception. Petitioner triggered the series o" delays in the e%ecution o" RTC#s "inal decision by "iling numerous motions and appeals in the appellate courts e'en causing the CA#s issuance o" the TRO en0oining the en"orcement o" said decision. -t cannot now debun& the "iling o" motion 0ust so it can delay once more the payment o" its obligation to respondent. -t is ob'ious that petitioner is merely resorting to dilatory maneu'ers to s&irt its legal obligation.