Case Digest (G.R. No. 208205)
Facts:
Atty. Romeo G. Roxas v. Republic Real Estate Corporation, G.R. Nos. 208205 and 208212, April 10, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.The dispute traces to a 1959 agreement between Republic Real Estate Corporation (RREC) and Pasay City for reclamation of foreshore lands along Manila Bay, authorized by Pasay City Ordinances Nos. 121 and 158. On December 19, 1961 the Republic of the Philippines sued for recovery of possession and damages, challenging the agreement as ultra vires, claiming the area was national park/submerged lands beyond the scope of Republic Act No. 1899, and asserting lack of national approval and public bidding. The Court of Appeals and ultimately this Court (in Republic v. Court of Appeals, Nov. 25, 1998) held the agreement and ordinances void but awarded RREC P10,926,071.29 on quantum meruit plus 6% interest from May 1, 1962, to prevent unjust enrichment; the award was to be divided “share and share alike” between Pasay City and RREC. That decision became final and executory on July 27, 1999.
After finality, RREC and Pasay City repeatedly sought recomputation or other remedies. This Court repeatedly denied or expunged those pleadings and warned against further filings; an Entry of Judgment was issued. In the Regional Trial Court (Branch 109, Pasay), RREC and Pasay City filed motions for execution seeking alternative reliefs including transfer of titles or present-day monetary equivalents; the trial court denied recomputation (Nov. 22, 2002) and again on reconsideration (Mar. 21, 2003) after a clarificatory hearing where a Bangko Sentral officer testified to a peso-to-present-value conversion figure.
Despite these denials, in May 2007 the trial court issued a writ of execution. On May 11, 2007 Sheriff IV Reyner S. De Jesus served a Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay demanding Php49,173,064,201.17 — a figure computed by the sheriff by converting the 1962 peso award to present value and compounding interest — rather than the P10.9 million specified by this Court. The Republic moved to quash; the trial court denied relief. The Republic then obtained certiorari from the Court of Appeals, which granted it: the CA held the sheriff’s notice and the writ were null and void because they exceeded the Supreme Court’s dispositive award and violated SC Administrative Circular No. 10-2000 and COA Circular No. 2001-002.
Separately, Atty. Romeo G. Roxas — formerly counsel for RREC’s longtime firm RGR & Associates — filed proceedings in his personal capacity. RREC terminated RGR & Associates on June 29, 2009 and engaged Siguion Reyna Montecillo & Ongsiako (Siguion Reyna) on October 29, 2009; the CA later recognized Siguion Reyna as RREC’s counsel. Atty. Roxas nevertheless filed a pro hac vice Petition for Review (Aug. 5, 2013) and other pleadings without RREC’s authority seeking attorney’s fees (beyond quantum meruit) and urging recomputation of the award to present-day...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the present money claim against the Republic ripe for execution, i.e., does this Court have jurisdiction to entertain direct execution without first resort to the Commission on Audit and compliance with governing administrative circulars?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in declaring the Regional Trial Court’s writ of execution (May 8, 2007) and Sheriff De Jesus’ Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay (May 11, 2007) null and void?
- Is Pasay City entitled to a share in the monetary award ordered in Republic v. Court of Appeals, and what is the meaning of “share and share alike” in that award?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in recognizing Siguion Reyna as RREC’s counsel and in denying Atty. Romeo G. Roxas’ clai...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)