This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-04-21 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court cannot blame petitioners for resorting to the remedy of mandamus because they have done everything in the books to satisfy their just and demandable claim. They went to the courts, the COA, the Ombudsman, and the DILG. They resorted to the remedy of mandamus because in at least three (3) cases, the Court sanctioned the remedy in cases of final judgments rendered against a local government unit (LGU). The Court ruled that a claimant may resort to the remedy of mandamus to compel an LGU to enact the necessary ordinance and approve the corresponding disbursement in order to satisfy the judgment award. In Municipality of Makati v. The Honorable Court of Appeals,[24] it was written: There is merit in this contention. The funds deposited in the second PNB Account No. S/A 263-530850-7 are public funds of the municipal government. In this jurisdiction, well-settled is the rule that public funds are not subject to levy and execution, unless otherwise provided for by statute [Republic v. Palacio, supra.; The Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego, G.R. No. L-30098, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 616]. More particularly, the properties of a municipality, whether real or personal, which are necessary for public use cannot be attached and sold at execution sale to satisfy a money judgment against the municipality. Municipal revenues derived from taxes, licenses and market fees, and which are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the governmental activities and functions of the municipality, are exempt from execution [See Viuda De Tan Toco v. The Municipal Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52 (1926): The Municipality of Paoay, Ilocos Norte v. Manaois, 86 Phil. 629 (1950); Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 61744, June 25, 1984, 130 SCRA 56]. The foregoing rule finds application in the case at bar. Absent a showing that the municipal council of Makati has passed an ordinance appropriating from its public funds an amount corresponding to the balance due under the RTC decision dated June 4, 1987, less the sum of ?99,743.94 deposited in Account No. S/A 265-537154-3, no levy under execution may be validly effected on the public funds of petitioner deposited in Account No. S/A 263-530850-7. | |||||
|
2005-10-12 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Countering the petition for contempt, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss,[21] wherein they alleged inter alia that they never disregarded the Order as the matter had in fact been calendared and deliberated upon during the meetings of the CSB.[22] In their subsequent Omnibus Reply,[23] respondents argued that petitioner's failure to avail of the proper recourse to enforce the final and executory judgment[24] should not be a ground to hold them in contempt of court. Citing the case of Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals,[25] respondents asserted that petitioner should have filed a petition for mandamus to force the CSB to pass the necessary resolution for immediate payment of the balance of the just compensation awarded in her favor.[26] | |||||