• This case involves a protracted legal battle lasting over two decades, where a landlord, Daniel So, struggled to execute a final and executory judgment for unpaid rent against his tenant, Food Fest Land, Inc. The Supreme Court relaxed strict procedural rules, reversed the Court of Appeals, and ruled that the five-year period for executing a judgment by motion was interrupted by the tenant's dilatory tactics and the trial court's own errors. The Court ultimately put an end to the litigation by computing the final judgment award itself and ordering its execution.

• The Lease: In 1999, Daniel So leased a commercial space to Food Fest for a Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) store.
• Ejectment Case: In 2001, So filed an ejectment case due to unpaid rentals. After a decade of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled in So's favor in a decision that became final and executory on March 16, 2011.
• Execution Saga: So timely filed a motion for execution in May 2011. However, the trial court (MeTC) issued a defective writ without a specific amount. This led to further motions, appeals, and corrections, delaying the execution for years.
• Final Hurdle: In 2018, when So filed for a new writ of execution, the MeTC denied it, ruling that the five-year period to execute by motion had already expired. This was affirmed by the RTC and later by the CA on procedural grounds.

• Initial Case (2001-2011): After multiple appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed with modification the CA decision, ordering Food Fest to pay unpaid rentals and damages. The decision became final on March 16, 2011.
• Execution Phase (2011-2018): So's timely motion for execution was stalled by the MeTC's issuance of a defective writ, leading to a second round of appeals to the RTC and CA to correct the amount.
• Final Appeal (2020-2022): The MeTC and RTC ruled that the five-year period had lapsed. The CA dismissed So's subsequent appeal on procedural grounds, prompting the current petition to the Supreme Court.

• Should the strict rules of procedure be relaxed in favor of the petitioner?
• Was the five-year prescriptive period for executing the judgment by motion interrupted by the delays caused by the judgment debtor and the court's errors?

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSING the CA and the lower courts.

• Procedural Rules Relaxed: The Court found that a strict application of the rules would result in a grave injustice to So, who had been trying to execute a final judgment for over a decade. The procedural defects in his CA petition were deemed excusable given the circumstances.
• Execution Period was Interrupted: The five-year period to execute by motion was tolled. The delays were not So's fault; they were caused by Food Fest's dilatory tactics (e.g., motions to quash, opposition to interest) and the MeTC's own errors (issuing a defective writ). These delays benefited the judgment debtor, Food Fest.
• Final Computation by the Supreme Court: To end the protracted litigation, the Court itself computed the total judgment award, including all unpaid rentals, penalties, compounded interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees, and ordered its immediate execution.

• Execution by Motion (Rule 39, Sec. 6): A final and executory judgment may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry.
• Tolling of the Prescriptive Period: The five-year period for execution can be interrupted or suspended on meritorious grounds, especially when the delay is caused by the actions of the judgment debtor or works to their advantage, and the judgment creditor has not slept on their rights.
• Relaxation of Rules: Procedural rules may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice to prevent a miscarriage of justice, especially when a party has been unjustly deprived of the fruits of a final judgment for a prolonged period.
• Service of Final Judgments (Rule 13, Sec. 13): Final judgments, orders, or resolutions must be served either personally or by registered mail; service by other means, like electronic mail, is not valid for this purpose.