Case Digest (G.R. No. 191667)
Facts:
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Eduardo M. Cacayuran, G.R. No. 191667, April 22, 2015, Special Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) financed two loans (the Subject Loans) to the Municipality of Agoo, La Union (Municipality) — a P4,000,000 loan to construct ten kiosks and a P28,000,000 loan to build the “Agoo People’s Center” — pursuant to resolutions of the Sangguniang Bayan authorizing Mayor Eufranio Eriguel to contract the loans. The Municipality used, among other collateral, a 2,323.75–sq. m. lot within the public plaza (the Plaza Lot). A group of residents led by respondent Eduardo M. Cacayuran (Cacayuran) opposed the redevelopment and, invoking taxpayer standing, sued LBP and municipal officers in their personal capacities to enjoin commercialization of the plaza and to have the loans declared void; the Municipality itself was not impleaded.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, Agoo, in a Decision dated April 10, 2007, declared the Subject Loans null and void, held the municipal officers personally liable for entering into ultra vires acts, and ruled that the Plaza Lot — being for public use — could not be used as collateral. The municipal officers appealed but their appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (CA) for abandonment; only LBP’s appeal was given due course. In a Decision dated March 26, 2010, the CA affirmed the RTC with modification (excluding Vice Mayor Antonio Eslao from liability), ruling among others that Cacayuran had taxpayer standing, the Sangguniang Bayan resolutions were invalid under Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) for lack of an ordinance, and that the loans were ultra vires.
LBP filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. In a Decision dated April 17, 2013, the Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA on standing, the ordinance requirement under the LGC, and the ultra vires characterization of the loans; LBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated May 22, 2013. Separately, the Municipality moved (July 8, 2013) to intervene and filed a Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention, contending it was an indispensable party as borrower and owner of the Plaza Lot. Cacayuran opposed intervention, asserting the action was against officers in their personal ca...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Municipality of Agoo an indispensable (real) party to this suit and therefore required to be impleaded so that the case may attain final...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)