NAGA CITY --- The people of this city, represented by its city mayor, Jesse M. Robredo, are up for rejoicing after the Supreme Court early this month reversed a Court of Appeals decision denying an application for a writ of preliminary injunction earlier filed by the city government before the appellate court.

The same Supreme Court decision also set aside RTC Judge Felimon Montenegro’s writ of execution pending appeal and also the sheriffs’ notice to vacate dated August 23, 2006, and notice of garnishment dated August 23, 2006.

        In a decision penned by Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, the Supreme Court’s Second Division said, “we find that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion when it denied petitioner’s [Mayor Robredo’s] application for writ of preliminary injunction because of the pendency of respondents’ Motion to Issue Writ of Execution with

        the RTC, but ruled on the merits of the application at the same time.” The same decision was concurred by Justices Conchita Carpio Morales, Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and Arturo Brion.

        Elated by the development, Mayor Robredo said he owes this latest victory to the people of Naga City whom he said solidly stood behind him with their heart, soul and limbs in the fierce battle to defend city hall from encroachers and thus preserve its name and honor as the seat of civil authority and the wellspring of public service and social responsibilities.

        He thanked City Councilor Nelson Legacion who was then the City Legal Officer for bravely handling the case and former IBP National President Atty. Jose Anselmo Cadiz, a fellow Nagueno, for offering his services pro bono, vowing to judiciously and tirelessly bring the case to even to the highest tribunal of the land, if necessary.

Abuse of discretion

        The Supreme Court, in its order, took to task the Court of Appeals for its grave abuse of discretion in denying the city government’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction.

        Stressing that “we are convinced of the pressing need for a writ of preliminary injunction,” Associate Justice Quisumbing averred that at most, the Court of Appeals should have deferred resolution on the application until the RTC has decided on the motion pending appeal.

        “Needless to reiterate, grave and irreparable injury will be inflicted on the City of Naga by the immediate execution of the June 20, 2005 RTC Decision,” Associate Justice Quisumbing stressed, adding that “foremost, as pointed out by the petitioner, the people of Naga would be deprived of access to basic social services” and that “it should not be forgotten that the land subject of the ejectment case houses government offices which perform important functions vital to the orderly operation of the local government.”

Montenegro order void

        As regards the garnishment of Naga City’s account with the Land Bank, the Supreme Court decision reminded that “the rule is and has always been that all government funds deposited in official depository of the Philippine Government by any of its agencies or instrumentalities, whether by general or special deposit, remain government funds.” Hence, such funds may not be subjected to garnishment or levy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held as void the August 23, 2006 notice of garnishment issued by the sheriff as a consequence of Judge Montenegro’s order dated August 17, 2006.

        Records of the case show that on June 20, 2005, RTC Judge Filemon B. Montenegro issued an order directing the city government to surrender physical possession of lots on which the city hall and other government agencies stand to the heirs of Jose and Helen Mariano, represented by Danilo Danilo Mariano. The same order also sought for the forfeiture of all improvements thereat, and to pay P2,000,000.00 monthly as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the land. On August 23, 2006, Judge Montenegro issued a notice of garnishment on Land Bank to effectively freeze all fund deposits of the city government.

        The Marianos wanted to reclaim the lots as their own alleging, among others, that the deed of donation supposedly entered into between the city government and the old Marianos were not perfected.

        The city government assailed Montenegro’s order and thereupon filed a motion for inhibition against the judge for alleged bias and partiality.

        This was followed by a petition for review with a very urgent motion for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction filed by the city government before the Court of Appeals.

Reversal

        To city hall’s dismay, the appellate tribunal struck down the city government’s application pending resolution by RTC of the Marianos’ motion to execute Judge Montenegro’s June 20, 2005 decision. Accordingly, Mayor Robredo, through counsels Cadiz and Legacion, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court last August 28, 2006.

        For their part, the Marianos called for the dismissal of the instant petition on the ground of forum-shopping. They averted that the pending petition for review in the Court of Appeals and the present petition were similar attempts to stop the immediate enforcement of Judge Montenegro’s order ejecting the city government from its present site at city hall compound.

        But the Supreme Court thought otherwise. Firstly, it said that the city government availed of the proper remedy of petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, Rules of Court, to challenge the August 16, 2005 order of the RTC.

        Secondly, the Naga City government was clearly not guilty of forum-shopping in filing the instant petition for review before the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court decision said. It explained that the special civic action of certiorari sought by the city government is an independent action, contrary to the filing by a party of two apparently different actions for the same objective which in that case is forum-shopping. The Supreme Court held that the ultimate purpose of such action by the city government is to keep the inferior tribunal within the bounds of its jurisdiction or relieve parties from arbitrary acts of the court.

        Verily, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals resolution dated August 16, 2006 and ordered the same Court of Appeals to therefore issue a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the decision by RTC Judge Felimon Montenegro which ordered the ejection of city hall from the lots being claimed by the Marianos.