YUJUICO v ATIENZA

PETITIONER (Teresita Yujuico)

NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari the decision of the RTC
Procedural Issues:
PONENTE: Tinga, J. COURT (1) On  April (3)  6 Mandamus
2001,  petitioner
is a  filed
remedy   a  available
Motion  forto Execution 
a propertyofowner  Judgment,
when a money
which the RTC granted. Branch sheriff served a Notice of Garnishment of
judgment is rendered in its favor and against a municipality or city; as
DOCTRINE: Money claims arising from contracts: filing of an Procedural Issue: funds of the City to satisfy judgment with interest.
stated in Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals:
expropriation case allows the court to have jurisdiction over a local (2) Not having been favored with a reply to her queries even after the lapse of
“Nevertheless, this is not to say that private respondent and PSB are
government unit Although the Order the 30­day compliance period, sent a letter to CSB dated Sept 10, 2001,
cannot be madeleft with to
subject noanlegal recourse.
appeal, the ruleWheremay abemunicipality fails or refuses,
demanding  and
relaxed when exceptional without
compliance
compelling justifiable
  with reason,
  the   Order.
circumstances   She to effect
  then
warrant   the payment
filed of a  for
  a   petition final money
RULING FORMAT: exercise of this contempt. judgment rendered
Court’s primary jurisdiction. against
In this case, theit,judgment
the claimant may avail of the remedy
RTC – Granted petition of Yujuico. Granted sought to be(3)satisfied has long
Finding Order of mandamus
attained finalityin and
orderthe
 granting Petition for Relief to  from
compel the enactment
expropriated
 Judgment and approval of the
 unacceptable,
necessary
property has beenpetitioner appealed to the SC by Certiorari.  appropriation
utilized as a school site for 5 now, yet just compensation ordinance, and the corresponding
FACTS has not been fully paid. These circumstances disbursement of municipal
merit fundsof
the relaxation therefore.”
the
(4) On   Dec   8,   1995,   City   Council   of   Manila   enacted   an   Ordinance technical rules of procedure to ensure that substantial justice will be
authorizing   the   City   Mayor   to   acquire   by   negotiation   or served. (4) The source of the amount necessary to acquire petitioner’s property having
expropriation certain parcels of land for utilization as a site for the RESPONDENT (City in fact been specified by the City Council of Manila, the passage of the
of Manila)
Francisco Benitez Elementary School.  Substantial Issues: resolution for the allocation and disbursement thereof is a ministerial duty
(5) The property chosen is located along Solis St. in Manila, containing Procedural Issues:of the CSB.
an approx. area of 3,979.10 square meters. The TCTs are all in the (1) Records of this case clearly show that the same counsel, the OCLO,
(1) Invoking jurisprudence holding that public funds cannot be made subject to
name of petitioner Teresita Yujuico. represented the City in the expropriation case and now, all except
(5)  Having relied on the representations of respondents for petitioner to file a
garnishment, the City filed a motion to quash the Notice of Garnishment. 
(6) The Ordinance provides that an amount not to exceed the FMV of one of the individual respondents in the case at bar. Manifestation in
(2) Countering  Petition for Mandamus, petitioner cannot now be sent by respondents on
petition   for   contempt,   respondent   filed   Motion   to   Dismiss.
the   land   then   prevailing   in   the   area   will   be   allocated   out   of   the the Order on the Motion to Quash Notice of Garnishment over funds
another wild goose chase to obtain ultimate recovery of what she is legally
Citing Municipality of Makati v CA, respondents asserted that petitioner
Special Educated Fund of the City to defray the cost of acquision. of   the   City   stated,   “Upon   manifestation   of   the   counsel
entitled to.
should have filed a petition for mandamus    for   the
to force the CSB to pass the
(7) Failing   to   acquire   land   by   negotiation,   the   City   filed   a   case   for plaintiff that it is the City School Board which has the authority to
necessary   resolution   for   immediate   payment   of   the   balance   of   just
eminent domain against petitioner as owner of the property. pass a resolution allocating funds for the full satisfaction of the just
While   this   Court   recognizes   the   power   of   LGU   to   expropriate   private
compensation awarded in her favor.
(8) RTC rendered a Decision in the expropriation case in favor of the compensation fixed.” property for public use, it will not stand idly by while the expropriating
(3) Following the decision of the RTC, respondents filed a Petition for Relief
City;   declaring   said   lots   to   be   expropriated   for   public   use.   In ­ Same counsel who made manifestation now claims that the City
authority   maneuvers   to   evade   the   payment   of   just   compensation   of
from  Judgment, invoking excusable negligence for failure to seasonably
exchange, City must pay Yujuico the FMV of the total sum of the should be made liable for payment of its own obligations, after
property already in its possession. 
file an appeal. (This was granted by the RTC, despite attainment of finality
subject lots. Judgment became final and executory, no appeal having previously   stating
of the Decision)   that   the   CSB   had   authority   to   satisfy   the
been interposed by either party. obligation   it   had  The notion of expropriation is hard enough to take for a private owner. He
pursued.   Through   counsel,   respondents   are
Substantive Issues:   and   courts   acted   in   accordance   with   the
estopped.   Petitioner is compelled to give up his property for the common weal. But to give it
RTC City’s own manifestations by running after the CSB, therefore,
up and wait in vain for the just compensation decreed by the courts is too
- Court granted Motion to Quash the Notice of Garnishment, stating that respondents and OCLO can not pass the obligation back to the
much to bear. In cases like these, courts will not hesitate to step in to
(1) CSB   has  a personality  separate  and  distinct   from   the  City such  that   it
this case is on all fours with the case of Municipality of Makati v CA, City. should not be made to pay for the City’s obligations.
ensure that justice and fair play are served. 
wherein it was ruled that “Public funds are not subject to levy and (2) Contrary to respondents’ claim, the law does not make the CSB an
(2)  Members of the CSB cannot be directed to decide a discretionary function
execution.” Directed to release the said amount (P31,039,881) to entity independent from the City of Manila. This is evident from the
Just compensation means not only correct determination of amount, but
in the specific manner the court desires. (Mandamus in this case)
Yujuico in partial payment of just compensation. City School Board provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991 and from the ff
also   payment   within   reasonable   time   from   its   taking.   The   decision
(CSB) is given 30 days to pass resolution for payment of the facts: rendering just compensation in petitioner’s favor was promulgated way
remaining balance due to the Yujuico. ­ The highest  ranking official of an LGU is designated as co­
back in the year 2000, years have passed, yet the award still has not been
- Court granted petitioner’s Motion for Execution, ordered respondents chairman of the school board
fully satisfied. 
to pass resolution appropriating necessary amount for full and ­ Government  officials in the school  board do not  receive any
complete payment of remaining balance due. With respondents not compensation(6)   or  Republic v Lim: Here the government failed to pay just compensation 
remuneration   while   NGO   representatives
interposing an appeal, Decision became final and executory.
merely receive allowances within five (5) years from the finality of judgment in the expropriation
- Court subsequently granted respondent’s Petition for Relief from
Judgment, despite the attainment of finality of the Decision. proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover 
possession of their property.
 Such is not a remote possibility; WHEREFORE, petition is 
GRANTED. Order of RTC granting respondents’ Petition for Relief from