AMORA, ERNESTO JR. A.

21-JD-009

MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN,
JR., as Judge RTC of Makati, Branch CXLII ADMIRAL FINANCE CREDITORS
CONSORTIUM, INC., and SHERIFF SILVINO R. PASTRANA, respondents.

G.R. Nos. 89898-99 October 1, 1990

FACTS:

Private respondents, Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium, Inc., were expropriated by

petitioner Municipality of Makati. Following the procedures, the RTC of Makati decided the
cost of the aforementioned land, which the petitioner must pay to the private respondents in
the amount of P5,291,666.00, minus the P338,160.00 advance payment. It issued the
appropriate warrant of execution, as well as a writ of garnishment of the petitioner's funds
deposited in PNB. However, petitioner filed a move for reconsideration, claiming that its
monies at the PNB could not be garnished or levied upon execution since doing so would
result in the distribution of public funds without the necessary appropriation, citing the case
of Republic of the Philippines v. Palacio. The RTC denied the request, which was overturned
by the Court of Appeals; the latter upheld the RTC's decision, prompting petitioner to file this
petition for review.

ISSUE: Whether or not funds of the Municipality of Makati are exempt from garnishment
and levy upon execution.

HELD:

Yes, it is petitioner's principal position that respondent RTC judge's orders entailed a net
amount of P4,965,506.45, where the funds garnished by respondent sheriff are in excess of
P99,743.94, which are public funds and thus exempted from execution without the statutory
authorization needed by law. This argument has some merit. The rule that public monies are
not subject to levy and execution unless expressly provided for by statute is well-established
in this jurisdiction. Municipal earnings received from taxes, licenses, and market fees are
exempt from execution because they are designed primarily and exclusively for the purpose
of supporting the municipality's governmental activities and functions. No levy under
execution can be properly implemented unless the Makati municipal council has passed an
ordinance appropriating the specified amount from public monies deposited in its PNB
account. This court, on the other hand, compels petitioner to pay for the land that they have
already used. Petitioner's flagrant unwillingness to satisfy its legal responsibility deriving
from expropriation of land they already own will not be tolerated by this Court. The use of
the state's eminent domain power should be done in a fair and just manner.