Facts: Michael and Annabel entered into an amicable settlement, evidenced by a document denominated as "kasunduan'' wherein Michael agreed to pay Annabel the amount of P250,000.00 on specific dates. The kasunduan was not repudiated. When Michael failed to honor the kasunduan, the Barangay Captain failed to enforce the kasunduan, and instead, issued a Certification to File Action. After about one and a half years from the date of the execution of the kasunduan, Angelita filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court a motion for execution. Michael argues that an amicable settlement or arbitration award can be enforced by ordinary civil action in the appropriate City or Municipal Trial Court and not by a mere Motion for execution.
Issue: Whether the motion for execution was a proper remedy
Held:
A perusal of the body of the motion for
execution shows that it is actually in the
nature of an action for execution; hence,
it was a proper remedy;
It is undisputed that what Angelita filed before the MCTC was captioned "motion for execution," rather than a petition/complaint for execution.
A perusal of the motion for execution, however, shows that it contains the material requirements of an initiatory action.
First, the motion is sufficient in form and substance. It is complete with allegations of the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action; the names and residences of the plaintiff and the defendant; it contains the prayer for the MCTC to order the execution of the kasunduan; and there was also a verification and certification against forum shopping.
Furthermore, attached to the motion are: 1) the authenticated special power of attorney of Annabel, authorizing Angelita to file the present action on her behalf; and 2) the copy of the kasunduan whose contents were quoted in the body of the motion for execution.
It is well-settled that what are controlling in determining the nature of the pleading are the allegations in the body and not the caption.
Thus, the motion for execution that Angelita filed was intended to be an initiatory pleading or an original action that is compliant with the requirement under Section 3, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court that the complaint should allege the plaintiffs cause of action and the names and residences of the plaintiff and the defendant.
Angelita's motion could therefore be treated as an original action, and not merely as a motion/special proceeding. For this reason, Annabel has filed the proper remedy prescribed under Section 417 of the Local Government Code. (Sebastian vs. Ng, G.R. No. 164594, April 22, 2015)
