Case Digest (G.R. No. 171182)
Facts:
University of the Philippines, Jose V. Abueva, Raul P. De Guzman, Ruben P. Aspiras, Emmanuel P. Bello, Wilfredo P. David, Casiano S. Abrigo, and Josefina R. Licuanan v. Hon. Agustin S. Dizon, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80, Stern Builders, Inc., and Servillano Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 171182, August 23, 2012, the Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.On August 30, 1990, the University of the Philippines (UP), represented by then-President Jose V. Abueva, entered into a General Construction Agreement with Stern Builders Corporation and its President Servillano Dela Cruz for works at UPLB. Stern Builders submitted three progress billings; UP paid two but withheld the third (P273,729.47) after a Commission on Audit (COA) disallowance. After the disallowance was lifted, UP nonetheless failed to pay; Stern Builders sued (Civil Case No. Q-93-14971, RTC Quezon City). The RTC rendered judgment for plaintiffs on November 28, 2001, awarding P503,462.74 (third billing and related amounts), P5,716,729.00 actual damages, P10,000,000.00 moral damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
UP moved for reconsideration; after denial, UP filed a notice of appeal on June 3, 2002. The RTC found the notice filed late, denied due course (Sept. 26, 2002) and issued a writ of execution (Oct. 4, 2002). Garnishment notices were served on UP's banks (LandBank, DBP) in June–July 2003. UP sought relief in motions to quash and filed certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 88125). The CA issued a TRO (Jan. 19, 2005) but subsequently, on September 16, 2005, the CA dismissed UP's certiorari petition and allowed garnishment/release, reasoning the funds had been earmarked for the project and were held in a fiduciary capacity.
UP elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45) from the CA decision. While the petitions and motions were pending, the RTC (under successive judges) issued orders permitting release; DBP eventually delivered a manager's check for P16,370,191.74 and, despite a Supreme Court TRO issued January 24, 2007, the garnished funds were released on January 17, 2007 pursuant to orders of the RTC (Judge Yadao). UP filed supplemental petitions in the Supreme Court to annul the RTC's release orders and to secure redeposit....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was UP’s notice of appeal timely, i.e., should the fresh-period rule (Neypes) be applied so that the RTC’s judgment was not final and executory?
- Did the execution and garnishment of UP funds violate the COA’s primary jurisdiction and PD No. 1445, such that execution should not proceed without COA settlement?
- Could the funds of the University of the Philippines—special trust/public funds—be validly garnished and released absent a specific appropriation, consistent with the Constitution and settled jurisprudence?
- Were the awards of actual damages (P5,716,729.00), moral damages (P10,000,000.00), and attorneys’ fees (P150,000.00 plus P1,500.00 per appearance) supported by the required clear and distinc...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)