Title
University of the Philippines vs. Dizon
Case
G.R. No. 171182
Decision Date
Aug 23, 2012
UP funds, as government funds, cannot be garnished; unjustified damages and attorney’s fees deleted due to lack of legal basis.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 161720)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Contract and Progress Billings
    • On August 30, 1990, the University of the Philippines (UP), through its President, entered into a General Construction Agreement with Stern Builders, Inc., represented by Servillano Dela Cruz, for extension and renovation works at the UPLB campus.
    • Stern Builders submitted three progress billings; UP paid the first two but refused the third (P273,729.47) due to a COA disallowance, which was later lifted yet remained unpaid.
  • RTC Judgment and Initial Execution Attempts
    • Stern Builders and Dela Cruz sued UP and its officials in RTC Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-93-14971). On November 28, 2001, RTC rendered a decision awarding:
      • P503,462.74 (third billing and related items)
      • P5,716,729.00 (actual damages)
      • P10,000,000.00 (moral damages)
      • P150,000.00 plus P1,500.00 per appearance (attorney’s fees)
      • Costs of suit
    • UP’s motion for reconsideration was denied May 7, 2002. UP filed a notice of appeal on June 3, 2002; RTC found it belated and, on September 26, 2002, denied the appeal and granted execution. The writ issued October 4, 2002; UP’s motions to quash and for reconsideration were denied.
  • Appellate Proceedings and Garnishment
    • CA dismissed UP’s certiorari petition February 24, 2004, affirming finality of RTC decision. SC denied UP’s petition for review on certiorari June 23, 2004 (final November 12, 2004).
    • Stern Builders filed successive motions for execution; RTC issued garnishment notices (June–July 2003) to UP’s depository banks (Land Bank, DBP). UP’s motions to quash were denied; RTC repeatedly ordered release of garnished funds (October 2003, March 2004, December 2004).
    • UP secured a TRO from CA (January 19, 2005) enjoining release. RTC later amended orders (May 3, 2005; July 8, 2005), directing deposit of check (P16,370,191.74). CA dismissed UP’s petition September 16, 2005; UP elevated to SC (G.R. No. 171182).
  • Conflicting RTC Orders and Bank Compliance
    • RTC (Judge Dizon) denied withdrawal of deposit January 30, 2006, pending final SC resolution.
    • Successor judge (Judge Yadao) on January 3, 2007 allowed immediate withdrawal; UP obtained SC TRO January 24, 2007, but DBP released funds January 17, 2007. RTC denied UP’s motion to redeposit April 10, 2007.

Issues:

  • Whether UP’s trust funds—public moneys—are proper subjects of garnishment absent a specific appropriation by Congress.
  • Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to enforce execution against UP funds without prior COA adjudication under P.D. 1445.
  • Whether UP’s notice of appeal, filed June 3, 2002, was timely in light of due process and the fresh-period rule.
  • Whether the RTC’s awards of P5,716,729.00 (actual damages), P10,000,000.00 (moral damages), and attorney’s fees lack the required express findings of fact and law and thus are void.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.