Case Digest (G.R. No. 181792)
Facts:
Star Special Watchman and Detective Agency, Inc., Celso A. Fernandez and Manuel V. Fernandez v. Puerto Princesa City, Mayor Edward Hagedorn and City Council of Puerto Princesa City, G.R. No. 181792, April 21, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners (the Agency and the Fernandezes) owned two parcels of land in Puerto Princesa City which, through earlier government activity associated with the Western Command (Wescom), were partly encroached upon and used as a road right-of-way (the Wescom Road). The petitioners instituted an action for payment of just compensation (Civil Case No. Q-90-4930) before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Quezon City (RTC‑Br. 78). On July 22, 1993, RTC‑Br. 78 rendered judgment awarding just compensation at P1,500 per square meter for Lot 7 (TCT No. 13680), interest, and monthly rentals of P2,000, and the decision later became final and executory; a writ of execution issued on February 17, 1994.
By October 1995 the money judgment had ballooned to P16,930,892.97. The parties negotiated a settlement that reduced the judgment to P12,000,000, with an agreed initial payment and subsequent monthly installments. Respondents (the City and its officials) disbursed P12,000,000 in a series of checks between February 1996 and October 1997, and certified the disbursements. Despite the payments, petitioners filed a new complaint on November 27, 2001 (Civil Case No. Q‑01‑45668) before RTC‑Br. 223 for collection of the alleged unpaid balance of just compensation, interest and rentals. RTC‑Br. 223 rendered a decision in petitioners' favor on November 18, 2003, awarding P10,615,569.63 (the unpaid balance) plus rentals; that decision became final and executory on January 20, 2004, and a writ of execution issued on February 10, 2005.
Petitioners moved in the RTC to garnish respondents' bank account(s) and to compel appropriation and payment, but RTC‑Br. 223 denied those motions (Oct. 27, 2005; Sept. 6, 2006; June 5, 2007), explaining that government funds are generally not subject to execution absent a corresponding appropriation (citing the Local Government Code provision that no money shall be paid out of the local treasury except pursuant to an appropriation). Petitioners likewise sought relief from the Commission on Audit (COA) by filing a formal money claim on July 13, 2007; COA declined to act on the ground that the matter was already in the execution stage and therefore outside its jurisdiction, and repeated that stance thereafter. Petitioners also sought administrative remedies (Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, DILG) without success.
Having exhausted those attempts, petitioners filed a petition for a writ of mandamus under Rule 65, seeking to compel respondents to comply with the RTC‑Br. 223 judgment and pay the judgment debt and continuing interest and rentals. Petitioners argued that mandamus was appropriate because the respondents' duty to pay a final, demandable money judgment is ministerial. Respondents countered that they had fully settled the obligation (P12M) and that mandamus was inappropriate because: (a) the proper procedure to enfor...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the remedy of mandamus proper to compel respondents (Puerto Princesa City, its Mayor and City Council) to comply with the RTC‑Br. 223 November 18, 2003 decision and pay petitioners the judgment debt plus interests unti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)