UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. AGUSTIN S. DIZON GR 171182 August 23, 213
FA!TS" The UP, through its then President Jose V. Abueva, entered into a General Construction Agreement with respondent Stern uilders Corporation !Stern uilders", uilders", #or the construction o# the e$tension building and the renovation o# the College o# Arts and Sciences Sciences uilding in the campus o# the Universit% o# the the Philippines in in &os a'os !UP&". !UP&". (n the course course o# the implementation implementation o# the contract, Stern uilders submitted three progress billings corresponding to the wor) accomplished, but the UP paid onl% two o# the billings. The third billing worth P*+,+*-.+ was not paid due to its disallowance b% the Commission on Audit !C/A". !C/A". 0espite the li#ting o# the disallowance, the UP #ailed to pa% the billing, prompting Stern uilders and dela Cru1 to sue the UP and its co2respondent o##icials o##icials to collect the unpaid billing and to recover various damages !actual and moral" and a ttorne%3s #ees. A#ter A#ter trial, the 4TC rendered its decision in #avor o# the plainti##s. 5ollowing the 4TC3s 4TC3s denial o# its motion #or reconsideration, UP #iled a notice o# appeal. The 4TC denied due course to the notice o# appeal #or having been #iled out o# time and granted the private respondents3 motion motion #or e$ecution. The 4TC issued the writ o# e$ecution and the sheri## o# the 4TC served the writ o# e$ecution and notice o# demand upon the UP. UP. The UP #iled an urgent motion to reconsider the o rder, to 6uash the writ o# e$ecution and to restrain the proceedings. 7owever, the the 4TC denied the urgent motion. UP assailed the denial o# due course to its appeal through a petition #or certiorari in in the Court o# Appeals but the latter dismissed the petition #or certiorari upon upon #inding that the UP3s notice o# appeal had been #iled late. The UP sought a reconsideration, but the CA denied the UP3s motion #or reconsideration. The UP appealed to the Court b% petition #or review on certiorari . The Court denied the petition #or review. The The UP moved #or the reconsideration o# the denial o# its petition #or review but the Court denied the motion which denial became #inal and e$ecutor%. (n the meanwhile that the UP was e$hausting the available remedies to overturn the denial o# due course to the appeal and the issuance o# the writ o# e$ecution, Stern uilders and dela Cru1 #iled in the 4TC their motions #or e$ecution despite their previous motion having alread% been granted and despite the writ o# e$ecution having alread% issued. The 4TC granted another motion #or e$ecution #iled. The sheri## served notices o# garnishment on the UP3s depositor% ban)s. The UP assailed the garnishment through an urgent motion to 6uash the notices o# garnishment8 and a motion to 6uash the writ o# e$ecution but was denied b% the 4TC. UP moved #or the reconsideration o# the order but was denied b% the same court. /n their part, Stern uilders and dela Cru1 #iled their e$ parte motion #or issuance o# a release order which the 4TC granted and authori1ed the release o# the garnished #unds o# the UP. The UP brought a petition #or certiorari in in the CA to challenge the 9urisdiction o# the 4TC in issuing the order o# 0ecember *:, *;;. chartered institution> per#orming a legitimate government #unction. (t is an institution o# higher learning, not a corporation established #or pro#it and declaring an% dividends. (n enacting 4epublic Act ?o. -=;; !The Universit% o# the Philippines Charter o# *;;@", Congress has declared the UP as the national universit% + >dedicated to the search #or truth and )nowledge as well as the de velopment o# #uture leaders.> UP is a government instrumentalit%, instrumentalit%, per#orming the State3s constitutional constitutional mandate o# promoting 6ualit% and accessible education. As a government instrumentalit%, the the UP administers special #unds sourced #rom the #ees and income enumerated under Act ?o. :@+; and Section : o# B$ecutive /rder ?o. +:, and #rom the %earl% appropriations, to achieve the purposes laid down b % Section * o# Act :@+;, as e$panded in 4epublic Act ?o. -=;;. A t0( $u%&s g*)%g )%t* t0( *ss(ss)*% *$ t0( UP, )%/u&)%g -% )%t(+(st -//+u)%g $+* t0( &(*s)t *$ su/0 $u%&s )% -% '-%4)%g )%st)tut)*%, /*%st)tut( - 5s(/)- t+ust $u%&,5 t0( &)s'u+s((%t *$ 60)/0 s0*u& -6-s '( -)g%(& 6)t0 t0( UP#s )ss)*% -%& u+*s(, -%& s0*u& -6-s '( su'(/t t* -u&)t)%g ' t0( !OA. 5T+ust $u%&5 as $u%&5 as a #und that o##iciall% comes in the possession o# an agenc% o# the government or o# a public o##icer as trustee, agent or administrator, or that is received #or the #ul#illment o# some obligation. += A trust trust #und ma% be utili1ed utili1ed onl% #or the >speci#ic purpose #or which the trust was created or the #unds received.> T0( $u%&s *$ t0( UP -+( g*v(+%(%t $u%&s t0-t -+( u')/ )% /0-+-/t(+ . /0-+-/t(+ . 7ence, the #unds sub9ect o# this action could not be validl% made the sub9ect o# the 4TC3s writ o# e$ecution or garnishment. The adverse 9udgment rendered against the
UP in a suit to which it had impliedl% consented was not immediatel% en#orceable b% e$ecution against the UP, because suabilit% o# the State did not necessaril% mean its liabilit%. A distinction should #irst be made between suabilit% and liabilit%. 5Su-'))t &((%&s *% t0( /*%s(%t *$ t0( st-t( t* '( su(&, )-'))t *% t0( -)/-'( -6 -%& t0( (st-')s0(& $-/ts. T0( /)+/ust-%/( t0-t - st-t( )s su-'( &*(s %*t %(/(ss-+) (-% t0-t )t )s )-'( *% t0( *t0(+ 0-%&, )t /-% %(v(+ '( 0(& )-'( )$ )t &*(s %*t $)+st /*%s(%t t* '( su(&. L)-'))t )s %*t /*%/(&(& ' t0( (+( $-/t t0-t t0( st-t( 0-s -*6(& )ts($ t* '( su(&. 0(% t0( st-t( &*(s 6-)v( )ts s*v(+()g% )u%)t, )t )s *% g)v)%g t0( -)%t)$$ t0( /0-%/( t* +*v(, )$ )t /-%, t0-t t0( &($(%&-%t )s )-'(. (Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Firme) The UP correctl% submits here that the garnishment o# its #unds to satis#% the 9udgment awards o# actual and moral damages !including attorne%3s #ees" was not validl% made i# there was no special appropriation b% Congress to cover the liabilit%. The Constitution strictl% mandated that >!n"o mone% shall be paid out o# the Treasur% e$cept in pursuance o# an appropriation made b% law.> II !OA ust -&u&)/-t( +)v-t( +(s*%&(%ts# /-) '($*+( (9(/ut)*% s0*u& +*/((& T0( (9(/ut)*% *$ t0( *%(t-+ u&g(%t -g-)%st t0( UP 6-s 6)t0)% t0( +)-+ u+)s&)/t)*% *$ t0( !OA. (t was o# no moment that a #inal and e$ecutor% decision alread% validated the claim against the UP. The settlement o# the monetar% claim was still sub9ect to the primar% 9urisdiction o# the C/A despite the #inal decision o# the 4TC having alread% validated the claim. As such, Stern uilders and dela Cru1 as the claimants had no alternative e$cept to #irst see) the approval o# the C/A o# their monetar% claim. 7owever, notwithstanding the rule that government properties are not sub9ect to lev% and e$ecution unless otherwise provided #or b% statute !4epublic v. Palacio, * SC4A @-- :-@8 Commissioner o# Public 7ighwa%s v. San 0iego, supra" or municipal ordinance !unicipalit% o# a)ati v. Court o# Appeals, :-; SC4A *; :--;", the Court has, in various instances, distinguished between government #unds and properties #or public use and those not held #or public use. Thus, in Viuda de Tan Toco v. unicipal Council o# (loilo !- Phil =* :-*, the Court ruled that 560(+( +*(+t *$ - u%)/)- *+ *t0(+ u')/ /*+*+-t)*% )s s*ug0t t* '( su'(/t(& t* (9(/ut)*% t* s-t)s$ u&g(%ts +(/*v(+(& -g-)%st su/0 /*+*+-t)*%, t0( :u(st)*% -s t* 60(t0(+ su/0 +*(+t )s (v)-'( *+ %*t )s t* '( &(t(+)%(& ' t0( us-g( -%& u+*s(s $*+ 60)/0 )t )s 0(&.5 The #ollowing can be culled #rom Viuda de Tan Toco v. unicipal Council o# (loiloD 1. P+*(+t)(s 0(& $*+ u')/ us(s ; -%& g(%(+- (v(+t0)%g 0(& $*+ g*v(+%(%t- u+*s(s ; -+( %*t su'(/t t* (v -%& s-( u%&(+ (9(/ut)*% -g-)%st su/0 /*+*+-t)*%. T0( s-( +u( -)(s t* $u%&s )% t0( 0-%&s *$ - u')/ *$$)/(+ -%& t-9(s &u( t* - u%)/)- /*+*+-t)*%. *.
III P(+)*& *$ -(- &)& %*t st-+t 6)t0*ut ($$(/t)v( s(+v)/( *$ &(/)s)*% u*% /*u%s( *$ +(/*+& Fresh-period rule -%%*u%/(& )% Neypes v. Court of Appeals /-% '( g)v(% +(t+*-/t)v( -)/-t)*% (t is true that a decision that has attained #inalit% becomes immutable and unalterable, and cannot be modi#ied in an% respect, even i# the modi#ication is meant to correct erroneous conclusions o# #act a nd law, and whether the modi#ication is made b% the court that rendered it or b% this Court as the h ighest court o# the land. Public polic% dictates that once a 9udgment becomes #inal, e$ecutor% and unappealable, the prevailing part% should not be deprived o# the #ruits o# victor% b% some subter#uge devised b% the losing part%. Un9usti#ied dela% in the en#orcement o# such 9udgment sets at naught the role and purpose o# the courts to resolve 9usticiable controversies with #inalit%. (ndeed, all litigations must at some time end, even at the ris) o# occasional errors.
ut the &*/t+)%( *$ )ut-'))t *$ - $)%- u&g(%t has not been absolute, and has admitted several e$ceptions, among themD =-> t0( /*++(/t)*% *$ /(+)/- (++*+s ='> t0( s*?/-(& %u%/ +* tu%/ (%t+)(s t0-t /-us( %* +(u&)/( t* -% -+t =/> v*)& u&g(%ts -%& =&> 60(%(v(+ /)+/ust-%/(s t+-%s)+( -$t(+ t0( $)%-)t *$ t0( &(/)s)*% t0-t +(%&(+ )ts (9(/ut)*% u%ust -%& )%(:u)t-'(. 0espite the absence o# the preceding circumstances, the Court is not precluded #rom brushing aside procedural norms i# onl% to serve the higher interests o# 9ustice and e6uit%. (t is settled that where a part% has appeared b% counsel, service must be made upon such counsel.-= Service on the part% or the part%3s emplo%ee is not e##ective because such notice is not notice in law. B6uit% calls #or the retroactive application in the UP3s #avor o# the #resh2period rule that the Court #irst announced in its ruling in ?e%pes v. Court o# Appeals that to standardi1e the appeal periods provided in the 4ules and to a##ord litigants #air opportunit% to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a #resh period o# := da%s within which to #ile the notice o# appeal in the 4egional Trial Court, counted #rom receipt o# the order dismissing a motion #or a new trial or motion #or reconsideration. The retroactive application o# the #resh2period rule, a procedural law that aims >to regiment or ma)e the appeal period uni#orm, to be counted #rom receipt o# the order den%ing the motion #or new trial, motion #or reconsideration !whether #ull or partial" or an% #inal order or resolution,>-- is impervious to an% serious challenge. This is because there are no vested rights in rules o# procedure. IV A6-+&s *$ *%(t-+ &--g(s, '()%g &(v*)& *$ $-/tu- -%& (g- '-s(s, &)& %*t -tt-)% $)%-)t -%& s0*u& '( &((t(& Section : o# Article V((( o# the Constitution prescribes that e$press #indings o# #act and o# law should be made in the decision rendered b% an% court, to witD The Constitution and the 4ules o# Court apparentl% de lineate two main essential parts o# a 9udgment, namel%D t0( '*& -%& t0( &(/+(t- *+t)*%. At0*ug0 t0( -tt(+ )s t0( /*%t+*)%g -+t, t0( )*+t-%/( *$ t0( $*+(+ )s %*t t* '( )g0t +(g-+&(& '(/-us( )t )s t0(+( 60(+( t0( /*u+t /(-+ -%& &)st)%/t st-t(s )ts $)%&)%gs *$ $-/t -%& *$ -6 *% 60)/0 t0( &(/)s)*% )s '-s(&. T* st-t( )t &)$$(+(%t, *%( 6)t0*ut t0( *t0(+ )s )%($$(/tu- -%& us((ss. T0( *)ss)*% *$ ()t0(+ )%(v)t-' +(suts )% - u&g(%t t0-t v)*-t(s t0( (tt(+ -%& t0( s)+)t *$ t0( !*%st)tut)*% -%& t0( Ru(s *$ !*u+t. The term $)%&)%gs *$ $-/t that must be #ound in the bod% o# the decision re#ers to statements o# #act, not to conclusions o# law. Unli)e in pleadings where ultimate #acts alone need to be stated, the Constitution and the 4ules o# Court re6uire %*t *% t0-t - &(/)s)*% s0*u& st-t( t0( ut)-t( $-/ts 'ut -s* t0-t )t s0*u& s(/)$ t0( su*+t)%g (v)&(%t)-+ $-/ts, $*+ t0( -+( 60-t -+( /-(& t0( $)%&)%gs *$ $-/t. The statement that >due to de#endants3 un9usti#ied re#usal to pa% their outstanding obligation to plainti##, the same su##ered losses and incurred e$penses as he was #orced to re2mortgage his house and lot located in Eue1on Cit% to etroban) !B$h. >CC>" and P( an) 9ust to pa% its monetar% obligations in the #orm o# interest and penalties incurred in the course o# the construction o# the sub9ect pro9ect> 6-s *% - /*%/us)*% *$ $-/t -%& -6 t0-t &)& %*t /* 6)t0 t0( /*%st)tut)*%- -%& st-tut*+ +(s/+)t)*%. The statement speci#ied no detailed e$penses. The omission o# such e$penses or losses directl% indicated that Stern uilders did n ot prove them at all. &i)e the actual damages, the moral damages constituted another 9udicial ipse di$it, the inevitable conse6uence o# which was to render the award o# moral damages incapable o# attaining #inalit%. T0( /*%t+-v(%t)*% *$ t0( -6 6-s -%)$(st /*%s)&(+)%g t0-t St(+% @u)&(+s, -s -% -+t)$)/)- (+s*%, 6-s )%/--'( *$ (9(+)(%/)%g -)% -%& *+- su$$(+)%gs . &astl%, the 4TC violated the basic principle that moral damages were not intended to enrich the plainti## at the e$pense o# the de#endant, 'ut t* +(st*+( t0( -)%t)$$ t* 0)s st-tus :u* -%t( -s u/0 -s *ss)'(. The general rule is that a success#ul litigant cannot recover attorne%3s #ees as part o# the damages to be assessed against the losing part% because o# the polic% that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. ?onetheless, 6)t0 -tt*+%(#s $((s '()%g -*6(& )% t0( /*%/(t *$ -/tu- &--g(s, t0()+ -*u%ts ust '( $-/tu- -%& (g- ust)$)(& )% t0( '*& *$ t0( &(/)s)*% -%& %*t st-t(& $*+ t0( $)+st t)( )% t0( &(/+(t- *+t)*% . That the attorne%3s #ees granted to the private respondents did not satis#% the #oregoing re6uirement su##ices #or the Court to undo them.:*: The grant was ine##ectual #or being contrar% to law and public polic%, it being clear that the e$press #indings o# #act and law were intended to bring the case within the e$ception and thereb% 9usti#% the award o# the attorne%3s ?onetheless, the absence o# #indings o# #act and o# an% statement o# the law and 9urisprudence on which the awards o# actual and moral damages, as well as o# attorne%3s #ees, were based was a #atal #law that invalidated the d ecision o# the 4TC onl% as to such awards. As the Court declared in Velarde v. Social Justice Societ%, :* the #ailure to compl% with the constitutional re6uirement #or a clear and distinct statement o# the supporting #acts and law >is a grave abuse o# discretion amounting to lac) or e$cess o# 9urisdiction> and that >!d"ecisions or orders issued in careless disregard o# the constitutional mandate are a patent nullit% and must be struc) down as void.>
