1:31 AM
Mandamus Is Not A Proper Remedy To Execute Money Judgments Against The Local Government Unit
1:31 AMPetitioners, SSWDA Inc., Celso and Manuel were the owners of two (2) parcels of land located in Puerto Princesa City. Before Puerto Princ...
Petitioners,
SSWDA Inc., Celso and Manuel were the owners of two (2) parcels of
land located in Puerto Princesa City. Before Puerto Princesa became a
city, the national government established a military camp in Puerto
Princesa, known as the Western Command. In building the command’s
facilities and road network, encroachment on several properties of
petitioners resulted. Petitioners’ property was used as a road
right-of-way leading to the military camp. This road was named the
"Wescom Road." Soon after, the City of Puerto Princesa
decided to develop the "Wescom Road" because local
residents started to build their houses alongside it.
In
view of the encroachment, petitioners filed an action for Payment of
Just Compensation against the respondents Puerto Princesa City, Mayor
Hagedorn and the City Council of Puerto Princesa City before the RTC
of Quezon City. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of petitioners.
After
the RTC Decision became final and executory, a writ of execution was
issued. The money judgment amounted was reduced to P12,000,000.00,
subject to the condition agreed by the parties. Petitioners claimed
that respondents paid the initial P2,000,000.00 but failed to give
further payments after. However, records show that the total
negotiated amount of P12
million was already fully paid and received by petitioners on the
basis of the certification issued by then City Treasurer of Puerto
Princesa.
Nevertheless,
petitioners filed a complaint before the RTC-Br. 223 against
respondents for collection of unpaid just compensation, including
interests and rentals, in accordance with the RTC-Br. 78 Decision. If
also filed complaints before the COA, Ombudsman and DILG to compel
the respondents to pay the judgment but COA countered that it does
not have jurisdiction over the matter.
The
petitioners filed the present petition for mandamus seeking to
direct, command and compel the respondents to enforce, implement or
pay the petitioners the judgment award of the Decision of the Quezon
City RTC.
ISSUE:
Is
mandamus a proper remedy to compel the respondents to pay the just
compensation?
RULING:
Mandamus
is NOT the proper remedy to compel the respondents to pay the just
compensation. Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of
competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign,
directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some
corporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty
therein specified, which duty results from the official station of
the party to whom the writ is directed or from operation of law. This
definition recognizes the public character of the remedy, and clearly
excludes the idea that it may be resorted to for the purpose of
enforcing the performance of duties in which the public has no
interest. The writ is a proper recourse for citizens who seek to
enforce a public right and to compel the performance of a public
duty, most especially when the public right involved is mandated by
the Constitution. As the quoted provision instructs, mandamus will
lie if the tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins
as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.
The
writ of mandamus, however, will not issue to compel an official to do
anything which is not his duty to do or which it is his duty not to
do, or to give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled
by law. Nor will mandamus issue to enforce a right which is in
substantial dispute or as to which a substantial doubt exists,
although objection raising a mere technical question will be
disregarded if the right is clear and the case is meritorious. As a
rule, mandamus will not lie in the absence of any of the following
grounds: [a] that the court, officer, board, or person against whom
the action is taken unlawfully neglected the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office,
trust, or station; or [b] that such court, officer, board, or person
has unlawfully excluded petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment
of a right or office to which he is entitled. On the part of the
relator, it is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that
he should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must
be the imperative duty of respondent to perform the act required.
Recognized
further in this jurisdiction is the principle that mandamus cannot be
used to enforce contractual obligations. Generally, mandamus will not
lie to enforce purely private contract rights, and will not lie
against an individual unless some obligation in the nature of a
public or quasi-public duty is imposed. The writ is not appropriate
to enforce a private right against an individual. The writ of
mandamus lies to enforce the execution of an act, when, otherwise,
justice would be obstructed; and, regularly, issues only in cases
relating to the public and to the government; hence, it is called a
prerogative writ. To preserve its prerogative character, mandamus is
not used for the redress of private wrongs, but only in matters
relating to the public.
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).
Moreover,
an important principle followed in the issuance of the writ is that
there should be no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law other than the remedy of mandamus being invoked. In
other words, mandamus can be issued only in cases where the usual
modes of procedure and forms of remedy are powerless to afford
relief. Although classified as a legal remedy, mandamus is equitable
in its nature and its issuance is generally controlled by equitable
principles. Indeed, the grant of the writ of mandamus lies in the
sound discretion of the court.
The
legal remedy is to seek relief with the COA pursuant to Supreme Court
Administrative Circular 10-2000 dated October 25, 2000, which
enjoined judges to observe utmost caution, prudence and judiciousness
in the issuance of writs of execution to satisfy money judgments
against government agencies and local government units. Under
Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Section 26 of P.D. No. 1445,
it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and
settle "all debts and claims of any sort" due from or owing
the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries.
The
settlement of the monetary claim was still subject to the primary
jurisdiction of the COA despite the final decision of the RTC having
already validated the claim. As such, the claimants had no
alternative except to first seek the approval of the COA of their
monetary claim. Considering that the COA still retained its primary
jurisdiction to adjudicate money claim, petitioners should have filed
a petition for certiorari with this Court pursuant to Section 50 of
P.D. No. 1445. Hence, the COA's refusal to act did not leave the
petitioners without any remedy at all.
Hence,
petition for mandamus is not proper. Petitioners are enjoined to file
its claim with the Commission on Audit.
G.R.
No. 181792, April 21, 2014
STAR
SPECIAL WATCHMAN AND DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC., CELSO A. FERNANDEZ and
MANUEL V. FERNANDEZ,Petitioners, vs. PUERTO PRINCESA CITY,
MAYOR EDWARD HAGEDORN and CITY COUNCIL OF PUERTO PRINCESA
CITY,Respondents.
MENDOZA,
J.:
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
