G.R. No. 90482 - Republic vs. Court of Appeals

On May 16, 1986, Republic Planters Bank (RPB) and several sugar producers filed a complaint against the Philippine Sugar Commission (PHILSUCOM) and the National Sugar Trading Corporation (NASUTRA) praying for:

Accounting of U.S. dollar deposits in domestic and foreign banks.
Inventory and delivery of physical sugar stocks for crop year 1984-85.
Payment of interests, penalties, moral, exemplary damages, litigation costs, and 20% attorney’s fees.
Preliminary injunction and restraining order against disposition of funds or sugar stocks.

On May 23, 1986, parties submitted a compromise agreement. On June 2, 1986, the RTC approved it, rendering judgment which, among other provisions, awarded 10% attorney’s fees.
After entry of judgment, parties litigated the issuance of writs of execution. PHILSUCOM and NASUTRA opposed execution; plaintiffs replied.

March 13, 1989: RTC dismissed multiple petitions for relief from judgment filed by various sugar producers contesting the attorney’s fees provision.
March 21, 1989: RTC granted alias writ of execution to implement the 10% attorney’s fees award; Deputy Sheriff del Rosario served RPB to pay P4,529,355.26 x 10% to private respondents.
March 27, 1989: RTC ordered officers of RPB to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for defying the alias writ of execution.

Petitioners sought certiorari relief in the CA (C.A.-G.R. No. 17188) to nullify the RTC orders of March 13, 21, and 27, 1989.
On October 13, 1989, the CA (15th Division) dismissed the petition on grounds that:

The funds subject to execution had been subrogated to the Republic; execution against a non-party State is improper and unconstitutional without appropriation.
RPB, as trustee, had accepted trustee’s fees and could not impugn private respondents’ attorney’s fees.
SRA lacked capacity to sue on behalf of the Republic; PHILSUCOM remained the proper party until its juridical personality lapsed.
The OGCC was not authorized to represent the Republic; remedy should have been appeal, not certiorari.

On October 25, 1989, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) filed a Rule 45 petition for certiorari in this Court in behalf of the Republic (through SRA) and RPB, praying also for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction.
On October 26, 1989, this Court issued a TRO restraining the RTC judge from further proceedings in Civil Case No. 86-35880.
Between November 1989 and May 1990, the parties filed comments, replies, motions to show cause against the RTC judge for alleged contempt, and memoranda.

Whether the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) have the legal capacity or authority to represent the Republic of the Philippines in the Rule 45 petition.
Whether the Court of Appeals deviated from the Ninth Division’s decision in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 11046 (Kramer, et al. vs. Hon. Caneba, et al., March 16, 1987) by refusing to invalidate the compromise agreement’s application to unnamed sugar producers.