Case Digest (G.R. No. 164282)
Facts:
Teresita M. Yujuico v. Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 164282, October 12, 2005, the Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.On 8 December 1995, the City Council of Manila enacted an ordinance authorizing the City Mayor to acquire by negotiation or expropriation certain parcels of land along Solis St., second district of Manila, for use as the Francisco Benitez Elementary School, and providing that payment may be defrayed from the City’s Special Education Fund (SEF). The parcels—totaling about 3,979.10 sq. m.—were titled in the name of Teresita M. Yujuico (petitioner). Failing to agree on negotiated purchase, the City filed an eminent domain suit on 22 August 1996, docketed before Branch 15, RTC of Manila as Civil Case No. 96-79699.
On 30 June 2000 Branch 15 rendered judgment declaring the lots expropriated and fixing just compensation (P18,164.80 per sq. m., plus improvements), with a net balance due to petitioner of P67,894,266.00 after crediting a prior deposit. The judgment became final and executory. Petitioner moved for execution (filed 6 April 2001); pursuant to a writ, the branch sheriff served a notice of garnishment on City funds deposited with Land Bank. The City moved to quash, and on 2 August 2001 the trial court quashed the garnishment but ordered release of P31,039,881.00 (manifested by the City as appropriated by the City School Board (CSB)) and gave the CSB 30 days to pass a resolution for the remaining balance.
Petitioner sought confirmation of compliance, sent letters, and—when no action followed—filed a contempt petition against the CSB members on 1 February 2002 (Civil Case No. 02-102837). The CSB moved to dismiss and argued petitioner should have sought mandamus; the court denied the contempt petition on 17 May 2002. Petitioner then filed a petition for mandamus on 6 June 2002 (Spl. Civil Action No. 02-103748) to compel the CSB to appropriate and disburse funds for the balance; Branch 51 consolidated the matter with the expropriation case before Branch 15, which, in a Decision of 9 October 2002, granted mandamus and ordered the CSB to immediately pass and disburse the necessary appropriation. Reconsideration was denied and the decision became final on 2 January 2003; entry of judgment followed on 15 January 2003, and execution was ordered on 12 March 2003.
On 14 March 2003 the CSB members filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment under Sections 2 and 3, Rule 38 (claiming excusable negligence) and sought injunctive relief; the trial court denied the TRO but, by Order dated 25 June 2004, granted the Petition for Relief from Judgment and thus gave due course to their appeal despite the prior finality of the grant of mandamus. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari (captioned as a Rule 45 petition) to the Supreme Court challenging the propriety of the June 25, 2004 Order.
The Supreme Court first addressed procedural objections (mode of review, impleading/substitution of new C...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court treat a petition filed as one for review under Rule 45 as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 and assume jurisdiction?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in granting respondents’ Petition for Relief from Judgment under Sections 2 and 3, Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure?
- Did respondents establish “excusable negligence” that prevented timely filing of an appeal?
- Did respondents show a good and substantial defense — specifically, that the City School Board is a personality separate from the City such that it cannot be compelled to appropria...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)