Facts
An expropriation proceeding was filed by
the Municipality of Makati, herein petitioner, against the private property of
Arceli Jo. In compliance to PD 42, the petitioner opened an account under its
name at PNB depositing an amount of P417,510.00. The court fixed the appraised
value of the expropriated property at P5,291,666.00 and an advanced payment was
made in the amount of P338,160 leaving a balance of P4,953,506. After the
decision becomes final and executory, the private respondent moved for the issuance
of a writ of execution. A notice of garnishment was thereafter issued by the
court to the PNB account. A manifestation was filed by the petitioner informing
the court that the private respondent was no longer the true owner of the
expropriated property. The court consolidated the ownership of the property to
PSB as a mortgagee/purchaser. The private respondent and PSB agreed to divide
the compensation due from the expropriation proceeding. The judge ordered PNB
to immediately release to them the sum of P4,953.506 corresponding to the
balance of the appraised value of the expropriated property. The PNB bank
manager refused as he is waiting for the approval of their head office. The
Municipality of Makati contends that its fund with DBP could neither be be
garnished or levied upon execution for to do so would result to the
disbursement of public funds without the proper appropriation required under
the law. The lower court denied the motion for reconsideration of the
petitioner ruling that the account with DBP of the petitioner was an account
specifically opened for the expropriation proceeding. Petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the lower court’s
decision. A petition for review with a prayer for preliminary injunction was
filed to the S.C. A temporary restraining order was issued by the S.C.
Issue
Whether or not the PNB funds may be levied
in the expropriation proceeding ?
Held
The petitioner belatedly informed the
court that there are two existing accounts with PNB. Account A was the one
intended for the expropriation proceeding and account B is primarily intended
for financing governmental functions and activities. Because account A has a
fund that is insufficient to meet the remaining amount of its balance for the
expropriation proceeding, it is unlawful to get the remaining balance from Account
B without an ordinance appropriating said funds for expropriation purpose. Thus
the court ruled that account A maybe levied but not account B. The respondents
are without recourse however should the petitioner refuse to pay its remaining
obligation. Where a municipality refuses without justifiable reason to effect
payment of a final money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail
the remedy of mandamus in order to compel the enactment and approval of the
necessary appropriation ordinance and the corresponding disbursement of
municipal funds for such purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment