G.R. No. 208205, June 01, 2016
ATTY. ROMEO G. ROXAS, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 208212
REPUBLIC REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
Upon execution, this Court's decision cannot be amended by the trial court or the sheriff. Absent an order of remand, we cannot allow attempts to substantially or materially alter the terms of our final and executory judgment.
This resolves the consolidated Petitions for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Petitions are an offshoot of the Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 102750.
On April 24, 1959, Republic Real Estate Corporation (RREC) entered into an agreement with Pasay City for the reclamation of the foreshore lands along Manila Bay.1 The agreement was made on the strength of Pasay City Council Ordinance No. 121, as amended by Ordinance No. 158, which authorized RREC to reclaim 300 hectares of foreshore lands in the city.2chanrobleslaw
On December 19, 1961, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) sued for recovery of possession and damages with writ of preliminary injunction.3 The Republic questioned the agreement on three (3) grounds. First, the subject of the contract is outside the commerce of man4 as the reclaimed area is a national park that the Republic owns.5 Second, Pasay City Ordinance No. 121, as amended, in including the reclaimed area, went beyond6 Republic Act No. 1899,7 which allows municipalities and chartered cities to reclaim only "foreshore lands," not "submerged lands."8 Lastly, the agreement was executed without approval from national government and without public bidding.9chanrobleslaw
This case entitled Republic v. Court of Appeals10 eventually reached this Court via two (2) consolidated Petitions for Review,11 docketed as G.R. Nos. 103882 and 105276.12chanrobleslaw
This Court upheld the Republic's arguments.13 Both the agreement and Ordinance No. 121, as amended, were declared null and void for being ultra vires and contrary to Republic Act No. 1899.14chanrobleslaw
This Court ruled that "RREC had no authority to resume its reclamation work"15 and that it failed to reclaim any area within the reclamation project.16 Nevertheless, it recognized that RREC undertook partial work by using the dredge fill of 1,558,395 cubic meters17 and mobilizing its equipment,18 for which it incurred expenses.
Thus, despite the nullity of the agreement and RREC's failure to reclaim any land, this Court awarded RREC compensation for the work it had actually done19 based on quantum meruit.20 It pegged the reasonable value of RREC's services at P10,926,071.29, plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1962 until fully paid.21 The amount was awarded to prevent the Republic's unjust enrichment at RREC and Pasay City's expense.22 Thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Although Pasay City and RREC did not succeed in their undertaking to reclaim any area within subject reclamation project, it appearing that something compensable was accomplished by them, following the applicable provision of law and hearkening to the dictates of equity, that no one, not even the government, shall unjustly enrich oneself/itself at the expense of another, we believe; and so hold, that Pasay City and RREC should be paid for the said actual work done and dredge-fill poured in, worth P10,926,071.29, as verified by the former Ministry of Public Highways, and as claimed by RREC itself in its aforequoted letter dated June 25, 1981.23 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)This Court also rejected RREC and Pasay City's claims of ownership over the lands in the reclamation area24 and reiterated that the Cultural Center of the Philippines and the Government Service Insurance System were the rightful title holders of these lands.
In G.R. No. 103882, the Petition is GRANTED; the Decision, dated January 28, 1992, and Amended Decision, dated April 28, 1992, of the Court of Appeals, are both SET ASIDE; and Pasay City Ordinance No. 121, dated May 6, 1958, and Ordinance No. 158, dated April 21, 1959, as well as the Reclamation Agreements entered into by Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation (RREC) as authorized by said city ordinances, are declared NULL and VOID for being ultra vires, and contrary to Rep. Act 1899.Republic v. Court of Appeals became final and executory on July 27, 1999.27chanrobleslaw
The writ of preliminary injunction issued on April 26, 1962 by the trial court a quo in Civil Case No. 2229-P is made permanent, and the notice of lis pendens issued by the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 51349 ordered CANCELLED. The Register of Deeds of Pasay City is directed to take note of and annotate on the certificates of title involved, the cancellation of subject notice of lis pendens.
The petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, is hereby ordered to pay Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation the sum of TEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND SEVENTY-ONE AND TWENTY-NINE CENTAVOS (PIO.926,071.29) PESOS, plus interest thereon of six (6%) percent per annum from May 1, 1962 until full payment, which amount shall be divided by Pasay City and RREC, share and share alike.
In G.R. No. 105276, the Petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.26 (Emphasis in the original)
This Resolution is final, and it is understood that no further pleadings shall be allowed. Under pain of contempt, petitioners and the other parties are hereby enjoined from filing any other petition or pleading in these cases[.]31 (Emphasis supplied)RREC and Pasay City filed before this Court two (2) more pleadings: (1) a Motion for Clarification of this Court's November 25, 1998 Decision dated March 10, 2000;32 and (2) Motion for Execution dated June 6, 2000.33 In light of its February 15, 2000 Resolution,34 this Court expunged from the records the Motion for Clarification on June 20, 2000,35 and the Motion for Execution on July 11, 2000.36chanrobleslaw
[O]nce the Court (SC) . . . has rendered its final judgment, all issues between or among the parties before it one deemed resolved and its judicial functions as regards any litigated matter related to the controversy litigated comes to an end.54 (Emphasis supplied)RREC and Pasay City moved for reconsideration.55 On December 20, 2001, the Regional Trial Court held a clarificatory hearing56 on the Motion for Execution.57 It summoned Ludivinia Gador, Bank Officer VI of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,58 who testified that the peso value of P10,926,071.29 in 1962 was then equivalent to P563,566,742.18.59chanrobleslaw
NOW THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to cause the implementation of the decision of this Court as modified by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court upon the plaintiff thru the National Treasurer.On May 11, 2007,73 Sheriff IV Reyner S. De Jesus (Sheriff De Jesus) issued a Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay74 against the Republic for P49,173,064,201.17 instead of the P10.9 million75 ordered by this Court, to be divided between RREC and Pasay City.76chanrobleslaw
In case sufficient personal property/ies of plaintiff cannot be found to satisfy the amount of the said judgment, costs, interest and your fees thereon, then you are hereby directed to levy the real property/ies of the said plaintiff and to sell the same or so much thereof in the manner provided for by law for the satisfaction of said judgment and that you make a return of your proceedings thereon within thirty (30) days from date.72chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Please be informed that on May 8, 2007, a Writ of Execution was issued in the above-entitled case by HON. TINGARAAN U. GUILING, Presiding Judge of this Court, copy of which is hereto attached for your reference.The Republic filed before the Regional Trial Court a Very Urgent Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution and the Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay,80 but it was denied on July 3, 2007.81 The trial court likewise denied the Republic's Motion for Reconsideration on February 28, 2008.82chanrobleslaw
By virtue of the said Writ of Execution, notice/request is hereby given for you to pay the principal money judgment and interest compounded annually in the total amount of Php49,173,064,201.17 immediately upon receipt hereof which amount shall be divided by defendants Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation, share and share alike.79 (Emphasis supplied)
The assailed Sheriffs Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay is palpably at variance with what was embodied in the November 25, 1998 decision of the Supreme Court. The dispositive portion of the said decision is categorical and unequivocal in its language that the amount to be paid by [the Republic] to [RREC and Pasay City] is only Php10,926,071.29, plus interest at 6% per annum from May 1, 1962 until full payment. Thus, there is no justification for the adjustment of the judgment award to its present day value. Indubitably, the assailed Sheriffs Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay is null and void as it does not conform to the tenor of the November 25, 1998 decision which it purports to implement.87 (Emphasis supplied)The Court of Appeals held that Sheriff De Jesus' "issuances wantonly disregarded and grossly violated [Supreme Court Administrative Circular] No. 10-2000 dated October 25, 2000 . . . [and] [Commission on Audit] Circular No. 2001-002 dated July 31, 2001,"88 which govern the execution of government funds or properties.89 Thus, the Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay is "patently null and void."90chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Writ of Execution dated May 8, 2007 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 109 of Pasay City and the Sheriffs Notice of Execution and Notice of Sale dated May 11, 2007 are hereby declared NULL and VOID. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by this Court on August 20, 2008 is hereby made permanent.Atty. Romeo G. Roxas (Atty. Roxas) of RGR & Associates, counsel for RREC since August 6, 1990,92 filed before this Court a Complaint93 against the three (3) Court of Appeals Justices94 who nullified the Writ of Execution and Sheriff De Jesus' Notice.95 The Complaint was for the Justices' alleged misconduct and violation of Section 3(e)96 of Republic Act No. 3019 in relation to Article 20497 of the Revised Penal Code, and it prayed for their disbarment.98 Atty. Roxas also filed a Motion for Inhibition99 against the three (3) Justices.100 Both the Complaint and the Motion for Inhibition were filed without RREC's authority.101chanrobleslaw
SO ORDERED.91 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondents RREC and Pasay City is hereby DENIED.On August 1, 2013, Atty. Roxas filed before this Court the Petition docketed as G.R. No. 208205, referring to it as a Petition for Review Pro Hac Vice109 He signed the Verification and Certificate Against Non-Forum Shopping in his own name.110chanrobleslaw
This Court hereby DECLARES and RECOGNIZES the law firm of Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako as RREC's rightful counsel of record without prejudice to the payment of Atty. Romeo G. Roxas of attorney's fees based on the doctrine of quantum meruit.
SO ORDERED.108 (Emphasis in the original)
Judges should bear in mind that in Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego (31 SCRA 617, 625 ), this Court explicitly stated:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryFor its part, Commission on Audit Circular No. 2001-002 dated July 31, 2001 requires the following to observe this Court's Administrative Circular No. 10-2000: department heads; bureau, agency, and office chiefs; managing heads of government-owned and/or controlled corporations; local chief executives; assistant commissioners, directors, officers-in-charge, and auditors of the Commission on Audit; and all others concerned.153chanrobleslawThe universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimant's action 'only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution' and that the power of the Court ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.Moreover, it is settled jurisprudence that upon determination of State liability, the prosecution, enforcement or satisfaction thereof must still be pursued in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in P[residential] D[ecree] No. 1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693, 701-02  citing Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84 ). All money claims against the Government must first be filed with the Commission on Audit which must act upon it within sixty days. Rejection of the claim will authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on certiorari and in effect sue the State thereby (P[residential] D[ecree] [No.] 1445, Sections 49-50).152 (Emphasis supplied)
Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Section 26 of P.D. No. 1445, it is the C[ommission] o[n] A[udit] 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[.]165chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryRREC's procedural shortcut must be rejected. Any allowance or disallowance of its money claims is for the Commission on Audit to decide, subject only to RREC's remedy of appeal via a petition for certiorari before this Court.166chanrobleslaw
No contracts or sub-contracts or agreements, plans, designs, and/or specifications of the reclamation project were presented to reflect any accomplishment. Not even any statement or itemization of works accomplished by contractors or subcontractors or vouchers and other relevant papers were introduced to describe the extent of RRECs accomplishment. Neither was the requisite certification from the City Engineer concerned that portions of the reclamation project not less than 50 hectares in area shall have been accomplished or completed obtained and presented by RREC.Moreover, despite our final and executory judgment in Republic v. Court of Appeals awarding RREC and Pasay City P10.9 million with 6% annual interest, RREC continues to claim entitlement to the bloated amount of P49.17 billion—an amount too much for reclamation work that was not only void,174 but also deficient.175chanrobleslaw
As a matter of fact, no witness ever testified on any reclamation work done by RREC, and extent thereof, as of April 26, 1962. Not a single contractor, sub-contractor, engineer, surveyor, or any other witness involved in the alleged reclamation work of RREC testified on the 55 hectares supposedly reclaimed by RREC. What work was done, who did the work, where was it commenced, and when was it completed, was never brought to light by any witness before the court. Certainly, onus probandi was on RREC and Pasay City to show and point out the as yet unidentified 55 hectares they allegedly reclaimed. But this burden of proof RREC and Pasay City miserably failed to discharge.173chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The interest of the judicial system in preventing relitigation of the same dispute recognizes that judicial resources are finite and the number of cases that can be heard by the court is limited. Every dispute that is reheard means that another will be delayed. In modern times when court dockets are filled to overflowing, this concern is of critical importance. Res judicata thus conserves scarce judicial resources and promotes efficiency in the interest of the public at large.We cannot allow RREC to waste any more of this Court's time and resources and disturb what is already settled, lest this controversy never reaches its end.
Once a final judgment has been rendered, the prevailing party also has an interest in the stability of that judgment. Parties come to the courts in order to resolve controversies; a judgment would be of little use in resolving disputes if the parties were free to ignore it and to litigate the same claims again and again. Although judicial determinations are not infallible, judicial error should be corrected through appeals procedures, not through repeated suits on the same claim. Further, to allow relitigation creates the risk of inconsistent results and presents the embarrassing problem of determining which of two conflicting decisions is to be preferred. Since there is no reason to suppose that the second or third determination of a claim necessarily is more accurate than the first, the first should be left undisturbed.
In some cases, the public at large also has an interest in seeing that rights and liabilities once established remain fixed. If a court quiets title to land, for example, everyone should be able to rely on the finality of that determination. Otherwise, many business transactions would be clouded by uncertainty. Thus, the most important purpose of res judicata is to provide repose for both the party litigants and the public. As the Supreme Court has observed, "res judicata thus encourages reliance on judicial decision, bars vexatious litigation, and frees the courts to resolve other disputes."177 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
[This Court's Decision] may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.181chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThis Court's final and executory decision cannot be amended. It cannot be done by the trial court,182 much less by its sheriff. The sheriffs execution of judgment is a purely ministerial phase of adjudication.183 In implementing the writ, the sheriff must strictly conform to the letter of the judge's order.184 Thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[Sheriffs] have no capacity to vary the judgment and deviate [from the judge's decision] based on their own interpretation thereof.The Republic argues that Sheriff De Jesus executed a judgment based on a computation that only he was privy to.186 In his Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay, Sheriff De Jesus failed to provide any attachment or explanation as to the source of his calculations.187chanrobleslaw
Well settled is the rule that when writs are placed in the hands of sheriffs, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate. It is not their duty to decide on the truth or sufficiency of the processes committed to [them] for service as their duty to execute a valid writ is not ministerial and not discretionary. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in the context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner and without regard to the exercise of [one's] own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. Where a requirement is made in explicit and unambiguous terms, no discretion is left to the sheriff [and] he [or she] must see to it that its mandate is obeyed.
Thus, echoing the decision of the Honorable Court in Tropical Homes vs. Fortune it is basic that the only portion of the decision that becomes the subject of execution is that ordained in the dispositive portion. Whatever may be found in the body of the decision can only be considered as part of the reason or conclusions of the court and while they may serve as a guide or enlighten to determine the ratio decidendi what is controlling is what appears in the dispositive part of the decision.185chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[T]he conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice . . . from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His [or her] conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized with propriety and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion.195chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryTherefore, we resolve to refer Sheriff De Jesus' acts to the Office of the Court Administrator for proper investigation, report, and recommendation.
The petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, is hereby ordered to pay Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation the sum of TEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND SEVENTY-ONE AND TWENTY-NINE CENTAVOS (P10,926,071.29) PESOS, plus interest thereon of six (6%) percent per annum from May 1, 1962 until full payment, which amount shall be divided by Pasay City and RREC, share and share alike.196 (Emphasis in the original)RREC argues that the phrase "share and share alike" should be interpreted to mean that "RREC and Pasay City should receive their share of the payment depending on each's [sic] share in the [reclamation] project."197 It concludes that since Pasay City contributed nothing, it alone should receive the full amount.198 This is erroneous.
A champertous contract is defined as a contract between a stranger and a party to a lawsuit, whereby the stranger pursues the party's claim in consideration of receiving part or any of the proceeds recovered under the judgment; a bargain by a stranger with a party to a suit, by which such third person undertakes to carry on the litigation at his own cost and risk, in consideration of receiving, if successful, a part of the proceeds or subject sought to be recovered. An Agreement whereby the attorney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the client's rights is champertous. Such agreements are against public policy especially where as in this case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the action at its own expense in consideration of some bargain to have part of the thing in dispute. The execution of these contracts violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which the former must incur administrative sanction.218chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryAs officers of the court, lawyers should not exploit nor take advantage of their client's weaknesses.219 Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits a lawyer from "lend[ing] money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he [or she] has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he [or she] is handling for the client." Bautista v. Gonzales220 has settled that "[a]though a lawyer may, in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same should be subject to reimbursement."221chanrobleslaw
To permit these arrangements is to enable the lawyer to acquire additional stake in the outcome of the action which might lead him to consider his own recovery rather than that of his client or to accept a settlement which might take care of his interest in the verdict to the sacrifice of that of his client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to his client's cause.224 (Citations omitted)This is precisely what happened here. In his desire to win the reclamation case and take his slice of the pie from the judgment award, Atty. Roxas resorted to prosecuting cases against the Court of Appeals Justices225 without RREC's knowledge and authority and against his client's interest.226chanrobleslaw
[A client] may discharge his attorney at any time with or without cause and thereafter employ another lawyer who may then enter his appearance. Thus, it has been held that a client is free to change his counsel in a pending case and thereafter retain another lawyer to represent him. That manner of changing a lawyer does not need the consent of the lawyer to be dismissed. Nor does it require approval of the court.230 (Citation omitted, Emphasis supplied).An experienced lawyer such as Atty. Roxas is expected know that a counsel's services can be withdrawn at any time.
Atty. Roxas is not a party litigant under Section 1. Only RREC, as the party seeking for the execution of judgment, and the Republic, as the party opposing RREC's claims, stand to be benefited or injured by the pending case. Atty. Roxas is not a party-in-interest under Section 2. He has no valid interest in this case as his contingency-fee agreement with RREC is champertous and, therefore, void. Likewise, Atty. Roxas is not a party representative under Section 3 as he is no longer RREC's lawyer.
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
SECTION 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. — Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.)—party plaintiff. The term "defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.)—party defendant.
SEC. 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
SEC. 3. Representatives as parties. — Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal. (Emphasis in the original)
* Designated member per Raffle dated September 22, 2014.
** Designated member per Raffle dated September 16, 2013.
1Republic v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 530, 545 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
4 Id. at 545.
5 Id. at 553-554. See Proc. No. 41 (1954) and Act No. 3915 (1932). The reclaimed area is the Manila Bay Beach Resort, a national park.
6 Id. at 564.
7See Rep. Act No. 1899 (1957), An Act Authorizing the Reclamation of Foreshore Lands by Chartered Cities and Municipalities.
8Republic v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 530, 559-564 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
9 Id. at 564.
10 359 Phil. 530 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
11 Id. at 544.
12 Id. at 530.
13 The Decision was concurred in by Justices Josue N. Bellosillo, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Jose A.R. Melo, Bernardo P. Pardo, and Jose C. Vitug (only in the result), with Separate Concurring Opinion by Justices Flerida Ruth Pineda-Romero, Artemio V. Panganiban, and Reynato S. Puno (joined by Justices Hilario G. Davide Jr. and Vicente V. Mendoza); and dissented by Chief Justice Andres Narvasa (joined by Justice Antonio M. Martinez).
14 Id. at 571.
15 Id. at 565.
16 Id. at 570.
17 Id. at 568.
18 Id. at 567.
19 Id. at 574.
20 Pres. Decree No. 3-A (1973), Amending Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 3, Dated September 26, 1972, by Providing for the Exclusive Prosecution by Administration or by Contract of Reclamation Projects, sec. 1 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySECTION 1. . . . .
. . . .
"The provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, the reclamation of areas under water.whether foreshore or inland, shall be limited to the National Government or any person authorized by it under a proper contract.
"All reclamations made in violation of this provision shall be forfeited to the State without need of judicial action.
"Contracts for reclamation still legally existing or whose validity has been accepted by the National Government shall be taken over by the National Government on the basis of quantum meruit, for proper prosecution of the project involved by administration."
21Republic v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 530, 571 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
22 Id. at 570.
24 Id. at 569.
25cralawred Id. at 672-673.
26 Id. at 571.
27Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), p. 65, Court of Appeals Decision.
28 Id. at 191, Resolution dated February 15, 2000.
29 Id. at 188-192.
31 Id. at 191.
32 Id. at 193, Resolution dated June 20, 2000.
33 Id. at 194, Resolution dated July 11, 2000.
34 Id. at 191.
35 Id. at 193.
36 Id. at 194.
37 Id. at 195, Resolution dated October 17, 2000.
38 Id. at 195-198.
39 Id. at 197.
41 RULES OF COURT, Rule 39, sec. 1 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySECTION 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. — Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party.
The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution. (n)
42Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), p. 198.
43 Id. at 730-731, Entry of Judgment.
44 Id. at 107, Republic's Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
45Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 816, Writ of Execution.
46Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), p. 107.
47 Id. at 208, Regional Trial Court Order dated November 22, 2002.
48 Id. at 203. RREC and Pasay City used the phrase "or in the alternative" after the end of prayers 1, 2, 3, and 4. This shows that they did not request for all of these reliefs, only for any of them.
50Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), p. 205.
51 Id. at 201-208. The Order was issued by Judge Lilia C. Lopez of Branch 109 of the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City.
52 Id. at 208.
53 Id. at 205.
55Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 11, Petition for Review.
56 Id. at 246-287, TSN, December 20, 2001.
57 Id. at 12, Petition for Review.
58Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 251.
59 Id. at 264.
60Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), pp. 209-210. The Order was issued by Pairing Judge Priscilla C. Mijares of Branch 109 of the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City.
62Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 804, Resolution dated June 25, 2003.
63 Id. at 805, Resolution dated August 20, 2003.
64Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), p. 65, Court of Appeals Decision.
65Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 807, Resolution dated June 15, 2005, and 808, Resolution dated July 27, 2005.
67 Id. at 809, Resolution dated June 20, 2006.
69Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), p. 65, Court of Appeals Decision.
71Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 811-817. The Writ of Execution was issued by Judge Tingaraan U. Guiling of Branch 109 of the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City.
72 Id. at 817.
73Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), p. 227, Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay.
74 Id. at 226-227, Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay.
75Republic v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 530, 571 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
76Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), p. 227.
77 Id. at 228. Sheriff De Jesus based his computation on the following formula: P563,566,742.18 (principal amount multiplied by P51.58, which is the real value of one peso today), with compounding interest of 6% from 1962 to 1973, and 12% from 1974 to 2007.
79 Id. at 226-227.
80 Id. at 229-248.
81Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), pp. 821-823.
82 Id. at 824.
83Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), pp. 84-143. The Petition was filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
84 Id. at 139.
85 Id. at 63-77. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes Jr. and Jose Catral Mendoza (now Associate Justice of this Court) of the Former Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
86 Id. at 68.
87 Id. at 71-72.
88 Id. at 74.
90 Id. at 76.
92Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 346, RREC's Position Paper.
93 Id. at 301-313.
94 Id. at 302. These Court of Appeals Justices were Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon, Andres B. Reyes Jr., and Jose Catral Mendoza (now Associate Justice of this Court).
95 Id. at 309-310.
96 Rep. Act No. 3019 (1960), Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, sec. 3(e) provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary. . . .
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
97 REV. PEN. CODE, art. 204 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryARTICLE 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
98Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), pp. 301-303.
99 Id. at 451-460.
100 Id. at 354, RREC's Position Paper.
101 Atty. Roxas' Complaint (Id. at 301-313) and Motion for Inhibition lack RREC's Board Resolution authorizing him to file these pleadings (Id. at 451-459). On May 4, 2009, RREC filed a Motion to Withdraw Motion for Inhibition stating that the Motion and the Complaint were filed without RREC's authority (Id. at 490). See also Board Resolution dated December 8, 2006 (Id. at 450), where the Board Chairperson tendered his resignation after Atty. Roxas failed to comply with RREC's directive that he should not file the Motion for Inhibition until the Board so decides.
102Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 347.
103 Id. at 345.
104 Id. at 348.
107 Id. at 78-83. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes Jr. and Jose Catral Mendoza (now Associate Justice of this Court) of the Former Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
108 Id. at 83
109Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), pp. 3-53. "Pro hac vice" translates to "For this case only." In Atty. Roxas' Pro Hac Vice Petition, he uses the phrase "by himself and by counsel" (Id. at 3).
110 Id. at 49-50.
111 Id. at 294, Republic's Motion to Dismiss/Expunge the Pro Hac Vice Petition.
112 Id. at 17.
113 Id. at 23.
114 Id. at 8.
115 Id. at 21.
116 Id. at 28.
117 Id. at 29.
118 Id. at 45.
119 Id. at 6.
120Republic v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 530, 571 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
121Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 44.
122 Id. at 45.
123Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), pp. 31-61.
124 Id. at 33.
125Republic v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 530, 571 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
126Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), pp. 34 and 38-42.
127 Id. at 49-51.
128 This Court has alreadydenied RREC's attempts to indirectly amend the Decision in Republic v. Court of Appeals. We recall the other instances in which RREC sought for a recomputation and failed, thus:
(1) On April 17, 2001, RREC filed a Motion for Execution (After Adjustment of Quantum Meruit Compensation) before the Regional Trial Court (Rollo [G.R. No. 208212], p. 107, Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals). The trial court denied the recomputation on November 22, 2002 (Id. at 201-208.), which this Court affirmed in the June 25, 2003 Resolution (Rollo [G.R. No. 208205], p. 805, Resolution dated June 25, 2003). On August 20, 2003, RREC's Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality (Id. at 743, Resolution dated August 20, 2003). (2) In 2003, RREC and Pasay City again filed a Motion for Adjustment of Arbitration Award (Id. at 807, Resolution dated June 15, 2005). This Court expunged the Motion from the records (Id.) in view of the Entry of Judgment in Republic v. Court of Appeals having been made on September 11, 2003 (Id. at 807 and 808, Resolutions dated June 15, 2005 and July 27, 2005).
129Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), p. 56, Petition for Review.
130Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 293.
131 Id. at 297.
132 Id. at 297-298.
133 Id. at 298.
134Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), p. 615, Resolution dated September 30, 2013.
135Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), pp. 664-667.
136 Id. at 827, Resolution dated January 13, 2014.
137Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), pp. 642-678.
138 Id. at 766-772.
139 Id. at 803, Resolution dated August 11, 2014.
140 Id. at 807-818, RREC's Reply.
141Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), pp. 867-874, RREC's Petition on Final Execution and Settlement.
143 Id. at 897-899, Withdrawal of Appearance.
144 Id. at 867-874, Petition on Final Execution and Settlement.
145 Id. at 873.
146 Id. at 867.
147 Id. at 873.
148 Id. at 902-907, Manifestation dated March 2, 2016.
149 Id. at 902.
150 SC Adm. Circ. No. 10-2000 (2000), Exercise of Utmost Caution, Prudence and Judiciousness in the Issuance of Writs of Execution to Satisfy Money Judgments Against Government Agencies and Local Government Units.
151 COA Adm. Circ. No. 2001-002 (2001) <http://www.coa.gov.ph/phocadownloadpap/userupload/Issuances/Circulars/Circ2001/COA_C2001-002.pdf> (visited May 16, 2016).
152 SC Adm. Circ. No. 10-2000 (2000).
153 COA Adm. Circ. No. 2001-002 (2001) <http://www.coa.gov.ph/phocadownloadpap/userupload/Issuances/Circulars/Circ2001/COA_C2001-002.pdf> (visited May 16, 2016).
154 Exec. Order No. 292, book V, chap. 4, sec. 11(1) provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySECTION 11. General Jurisdiction.—(1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.
155 Exec. Order No. 292 (1987), Instituting the Administrative Code of 1987.
156Carabao, Inc. v. Agricultural Productivity Commission, 146 Phil. 236 (1970) [Per J. Teehankee, En Banc].
157 Exec. Order No. 292, book V, chap. 8, sec. 45(1) provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySECTION 45. Disbursement of Government Funds.—(1) Revenue funds shall not be paid out of any public treasury or depository except in pursuance of an appropriation law or other specific statutory authority[.]
158 Com. Act No. 327 (1938), An Act Fixing the Time within which the Auditor General Shall Render His Decisions and Prescribing the Manner of Appeal Therefrom.
159 Pres. Decree No. 1445 (1978), secs. 49-50.
160 Com. Act No. 327 (1938), sec. 1 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 1. In all cases involving the settlement of accounts or claims, other than those of accountable officers, the Auditor General shall act and decide the same within sixty days, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, after their presentation. If said accounts or claims need reference to other persons, office or offices, or to a party interested, the period aforesaid shall be counted from the time the last comment necessary to a proper decision is received by him.
Pres. Decree No. 1445 (1978), sec. 49 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 49. Period for rendering decisions of the Commission. The Commission shall decide any case brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for resolution. If the account or claim involved in the case needs reference to other persons or offices, or to a party interested, the period shall be counted from the time the last comment necessary to a proper decision is received by it.
161 Pres. Decree No. 1445 (1978), sec. 50 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 50, Appeal from decisions of the Commission. The party aggrieved by any decision, order, or ruling of the Commission may within thirty days from his receipt of a copy thereof appeal on certiorari to the Supreme Court in the manner provided by law and the Rules of Court. When the decision, order, or ruling adversely affects the interest of any government agency, the appeal may be taken by the proper head of that agency.
162 146 Phil. 236 (1970) [Per J. Teehankee, En Banc].
163 Id. at 241.
164 G.R. No. 181792, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 66 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
165 Id. at 87, citing National Electrification Administration v. Morales, 555 Phil. 74, 84-87 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division].
167 Id. at 722, Resolution dated February 15, 2000, and 729, Resolution dated October 17, 2000.
168 Id. at 726.
169 Id. at 722.
170 Id. at 33, Petition for Review.
172 Id. at 31.
173Republic v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 530, 564 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
174 Id. at 571.
175 Id. at 564.
176 G.R. No. 100156, June 27, 1994, 233 SCRA 384 [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
177 Id. at 388-389.
178Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration v. Gonzales, 180 Phil. 604, 616 (1979) [Per J. Fernandez, First Division].
179Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation, 512 Phil. 679, 708 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].
180 512 Phil. 679 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division].
181 Id. at 708.
183Bayer Phil, Inc. v. Agana, 159 Phil. 953, 964 (1975) [Per J. Antonio, Second Division].
184Alconera v. Pallanan, A.M. No. P-12-3069, January 20, 2014, 714 SCRA 204, 220 [Per J. Velasco, Third Division].
185Teodosio v. Somosa, et al., 612 Phil. 858, 872-873 (2009) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
186Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), p. 661, Republic's Consolidated Comment.
188Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), pp. 246-407, TSN, December 20, 2001.
189Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), pp. 209-210, Regional Trial Court Order dated March 21, 2003.
190Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), pp. 804 and 805, Resolutions dated June 25, 2003 and August 20, 2003.
191 AM No. 03-06-13-SC (2004).
192Spouses Villaceran v. Beltejar, 495 Phil. 177, 186 (2005) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
193Legaspi v. Tobillo, 494 Phil. 229, 238 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division].
194 163 Phil. 121 (1976) [Per J. Esguerra, Second Division].
195 Id. at 128.
196 Id. at 571.
197Rollo (G.R. No. 208212), p. 56.
199 Rep. Act No. 1899 (1957), sec. 1 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 1. Authority is hereby granted to all municipalities, and chartered cities to undertake and carry out at their own expense the reclamation by dredging, filling, or other means, of any foreshore lands bordering them, and to establish, provide, construct, maintain and repair proper and adequate docking and harbor facilities as such municipalities and chartered cities may determine in consultation with the Secretary of Finance and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
200 Rep. Act No. 1899 (1957), sec. 9 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySec. 9. The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, municipalities and chartered cities are hereby authorized and empowered to execute by administration any reclamation work or any construction authorized in section one hereof: Provided, That all such works shall be prosecuted on the basis of plans and specifications approved by the Director of Public Works: And provided, further, That the District or City Engineer concerned shall certify every statement of accomplished worked that the same is in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
201See J. Romero, Separate Opinion in Republic v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 530, 580 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
202Bolos v. Bolos, 648 Phil. 630, 637 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
203 Id. at 637.
204Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, 747 SCRA 1, 41-45 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
205Macapagal v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 193217, February 26, 2014, 717 SCRA 425, 430-431 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
206Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, 747 SCRA 1, 46-47 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
207Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 6. Atty. Roxas argues that the Court of Appeals committed serious and reversible error when it declared, in the July 16, 2013 Resolution, that Siguion Reyna is RREC's rightful counsel.
208 Id. at 314-315, Atty. Roxas' letter dated June 22, 2009.
209 Id. at 314.
210 Id. at 20.
211 Id. at 314.
212 Id. at 21.
214 Id. at 314-315.
215 Id. at 447-449, Letter dated March 15, 2000.
216 Id. at 5.
217 598 Phil. 214 (2009) [Per J. Azcuna, First Division].
218 Id. at 228, citing Blacks Dictionary; Schnabel v. Taft Broadcasting Co., Inc. Mo. App. 525 S.W. 2d 819, 823; JBP Holding Corporation v. U.S. 166 F. Supp. 324 (1958); Sampliner v. Motion Pictures Patents Co., et al., 225 F. 242 (1918).
220 261 Phil. 266 (1990) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
221 Id. at 281.
223Nocom v. Camerino, et al., 598 Phil. 214, 228 (2009) [Per J. Azcuna, First Division].
224Conjugal Partnership of Spouses Cadavedo, et al. v. Lacaya, married to Legados, G.R. No. 173188, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 397, 417 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
225Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 315, Atty. Roxas' letter dated June 22, 2009.
226 Due to Atty. Roxas' actions, RREC terminated the services of RGR & Associates. It also withdrew the cases against the Court of Appeals Associate Justices.
227Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 348, RREC's Position Paper.
228 Id. at 684.
229 524 Phil. 37 (2006) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].
230 Id. at 58.
231 347 Phil. 687 (1997) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
232 Id. at 693.
233Rollo (G.R. No. 208205), p. 352, RREC's Position Paper.
234 Id. at 353.
235 121 Phil. 1239 (1965) [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].
236 RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 1 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySEC. 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.