Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan vs. Fernandez

G.R. No. L-61744
Municipality's public funds exempt from execution; writ of execution and arrest orders set aside by Supreme Court, citing public trust and procedural lapses.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-61744)

Factual Background

In Civil Case No. 604-B, entitled Margarita D. Vda. de Imperio, et al. vs. Municipal Government of San Miguel, Bulacan, et al., the then Court of First Instance of Bulacan rendered judgment on April 28, 1978 in favor of the private plaintiffs. The court ordered partial revocation of a Deed of Donation dated October 27, 1947 insofar as five lots totaling 4,646 square meters were concerned, directed reconveyance to the plaintiffs in specified undivided shares, restored ownership and possession, and awarded P64,440.00 for rentals collected from 1970 through 1975 plus legal interest, attorney's fees of P3,000.00, and costs.

Trial Court Judgment and Appeals

The trial court's judgment became final when the Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan failed to file the record on appeal and its appeal was dismissed. That dismissal was affirmed by the then Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-12118 and by this Court in G.R. No. 59938. Thereafter the plaintiffs moved for issuance of a writ of execution to satisfy the monetary and restorative components of the judgment.

Post-judgment Proceedings and Writ of Execution

On July 27, 1982 the respondent judge issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for execution and an alias writ of execution issued the same date. On July 30, 1982 the Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan filed a motion to quash the writ of execution on the ground that the municipality's funds are public funds exempt from execution. The respondent judge denied the motion to quash by order dated August 23, 1982, leaving the alias writ in full force and effect. On September 13, 1982 the respondent judge ordered Municipal Treasurer Miguel C. Roura and Provincial Treasurer Agustin O. Talavera to comply with the money judgment and directed municipal authorities to desist from interfering with plaintiffs' legal possession. The court gave the defendants ten days to submit written compliance. When the treasurers failed to comply, the respondent judge ordered their arrest, authorizing release only upon compliance.

Petition and Issue Presented

The Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan petitioned this Court for relief from the respondent judge's orders. The sole legal issue presented was whether the funds of the municipality, as handled by the Provincial Treasurer of Bulacan and the Municipal Treasurer of San Miguel, are public funds exempt from levy and execution and therefore not subject to the writs and orders issued to satisfy the money judgment in Civil Case No. 604-B.

Parties' Contentions

The petitioner maintained that municipal funds are public funds held in trust for the people and are exempt from execution. The petitioner pointed to Presidential Decree No. 477, Section 2 (a), which requires that money be paid out of the treasury only in pursuance of a lawful appropriation, and asserted that no ordinance of the Sangguniang Bayan had been shown to authorize payment to satisfy the judgment. The private plaintiffs proceeded by motion for execution and relied on the finality of the judgment and the respondent judge's authority to issue writs and enforcement orders. The record before this Court contained the respondent judge's orders but did not show any statutory or ordinance appropriation authorizing payment from municipal funds.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that public funds and public property are not subject to levy and execution. The Court cited Municipality of Paoay vs. Manaois, 86 Phil. 629, for the proposition that municipal funds are held in trust for the people and that subjecting them to execution would defeat municipal purposes. The Court cited Tantoco vs. Municipal Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52, to the effect that taxes and public revenues in the hands of officers of the law are not subject to execution unless statute so declares. The Court observed that Presidential Decree No. 477, Section 2 (a), establishes the principle that no money shall be paid out of the treasury except pursuant to a lawful appropriation, and that the case record did not demonstrate that the Sangguniang Bayan had enacted an ordinance appropriating funds for payment of the judgment. The Court further noted that the enforcement procedure for money judgments under Section 15, Rule 39 of the New Rules of Court contemplates levy upon property not otherwise exempt from execution and sale of levied property, a procedure not shown to have been followed in this case.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

...continue reading

Philippine legal research, made clearer
AI-generated research aids. Verify with Full Text.