Buaya Vs. Stronghold Insurance Co.

Facts:
Stronghold Insurance Company filed a complaint against Buaya for the collection of 678,076.83 in
unremitted premium collections. Buaya failed to appear at the pre-trial and was declared in default.
The company was allowed to adduce the evidence and was thereby awarded with the sum plus legal
interest. Boaya appealed the decision and the court promlgated a decision in favor of the petitioner
annulling the previous decision and remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings. The
court would then continuously set a date for the hearing however the petitioner would always request
for a Motion of Postponement for one reason or another. Finally after months of rescheduling the date,
the court set the date November 29, 1991 and subjected it with the condition that if Buaya still didn't
show up, he would give up his rate to adduce his evidence. Buaya once again filed a Motion to
Postpone but this time the court issued an order denying the motion and declaring that he had waived
his right to adduce his evidence. The company then filed a motion asking the court to reinstate the
previous decision which the court appoved. Buaya then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA but
was denied for lack of merit. The Company then files for a Writ for Execution which was approved,
following the court's denial of Buaya's Motion for Reconsideration. Finally, Buaya filed a Notice of
Appeal but was denied by the court who said that the decision had become final and executory.

Issue:
Whether or not a decision of the RTC which was annuled by the CA can be reinstated by the trial court
which rendered the decision.

Whether or not a trial court merely requires the presentation of evidence from the petitioner (Buaya)
and not anymore from the respondent (company) for cross-examination by the petitioner considering
that the decision was annulled.

Ruling:
Petition has no merit.
Decision from the court had merely been set aside, remanded to court of origin for further proceedings.
Since it was merely set aside, there was nothing wrong with the decision to reinstate the original
decision since the petitioner failed to take advantage of the ample opportunity given him to present
evidence. Petitioner also failed to attach a copy of the CA Decision which he claims annulled the
original Decision and failure to submit this document is sufficient ground for petition's desimissal. As
for the second issue, CA remanded the case to the court of origin for further hearing and not for retrial.

* Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter
of right, and the issuance of a Writ of Execution becomes a ministerial duty of the court. Right or
wrong, the decision in the first appeal is binding on both the trial and the appellate courts for the
purpose of that case and for that case only.