Case Digest (G.R. No. 198008)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Regional Executive Director, Region X, Department of Public Works and Highways v. Benjohn Fetalvero, G.R. No. 198008, February 04, 2019, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner (the Republic through the Department of Public Works and Highways, Region X) instituted Civil Case No. 7118 for expropriation on February 13, 2008 to determine and pay just compensation for 569 square meters taken from respondent Benjohn Fetalvero’s 2,787-square-meter lot in Iligan City. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Notice of Appearance and deputized Atty. Earnest L. Lorea to assist, with an express reservation that only notices of orders, resolutions and decisions served on the OSG would bind the Government. The trial court referred the case to mediation.
On September 1, 2008 the parties executed a Compromise Agreement stipulating 1,428 square meters at P9,500.00 per square meter (total P13,566,000.00) with payment due by September 2009 and 12% interest thereafter; the trial court approved the compromise on October 17, 2008. The OSG later advised (June 4, 2009) that the Compromise Agreement was not binding because it had not been submitted for OSG review as required by the deputation and failed to specify how just compensation was computed.
Respondent moved for a writ of garnishment to satisfy the trial court judgment; the RTC granted the motion on September 22, 2009 and denied reconsideration on April 23, 2010. The Republic sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition on July 29, 2011, holding the OSG had notice and the judgment was executory and that public funds may be seized where appropriated for the judgment. The Republic filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court (filed October 6, 2011), challenging (a) the validity of the Compromise Agreement for lack of OSG review; (b) alleged grossly disadvantageous compensation; and (c) the propriety of garnishing government...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the Compromise Agreement void for not having been submitted to the Office of the Solicitor General for review?
- Is the Compromise Agreement void because the agreed amount of just compensation is grossly disadvantageous to the government?
- May government funds be seized under a writ of execution or writ of garnishment to satisf...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)