Municipality of Makati vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 89898-99, October 1, 1990
Facts: Petitioner Municipality of Makati expropriated a portion of land owned by private respondents respondents,, Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium, Consortium, Inc. in 1986, In lieu of an expropriation expropriation proceeding proceeding filed in court, court, petitioner petitioner Municipality Municipality of Makati Makati opened a bank account with the PNB Buendia Branch under petitioner's name containing the sum of P417,510.00 P417,510.00,, pursuant to the provisions provisions of Pres. Decree No. 42. RTC Makati determined the cost of the said land to be P5,291,666.00 minus the advanced payment of P338,160.00. It issued the corresponding writ of execution accompanied with a writ of garnishment of funds of the petitioner which was depo deposi site ted d in PNB. PNB. After After this this deci decisi sion on beca became me fina finall and and exec execut utor ory, y, a writ writ of execution was issued and a Notice of Garnishment was served by respondent sherif sherifff upon upon the manager manager of the PNB Buendia Buendia Branch Branch.. Howeve However, r, respon responden dentt sheriff sheriff was informed informed that a "hold code" was placed on the account of petitioner. petitioner. Private respondent then filed a motion praying for the court to order the bank to deliver to the sheriff the unpaid balance, while petitioner also filed a motion to lift the garnishment. While While thes these e moti motion ons s are are pend pendin ing, g, howev however, er, a “Man “Manif ifes esta tati tion on” ” was was filed, filed, informing the court that private respondent was no longer the owner of the subject property and that ownership to this has been transferred to Philippine Savi Saving ngs s Bank Bank,, Inc. Inc. A compromise made betwee between n privat private e compromise agreement was made respondent and Philippine Savings Bank, Inc., which was then approved by the court. The court further ordered PNB Buendia Branch to immediately release to PSB the sum of P4,953,506.45 which corresponds to the balance of the appraised value of the subject property, from the garnished account of petitioner but the bank failed failed to comply comply as it was still still waitin waiting g for proper proper authoriz authorizati ation on from the PNB head office enabling it to make a disbursement for the amount so ordered. As the case was in the Supreme Court, petitioner raised for the first time that it had two accounts with PNB Buendia Branch: one was made exclusively for the expropriation of the subject property, and the other is for statutory obligations and other purposes of the municipal government
Issue: WON the balance of the appraised value of the subject property may be levied upon the second account of petitioner municipality?
Held: •
•
•
It is well-settled is the rule that public funds are not subject to levy and execution, unless otherwise provided for by statute. More More part partic icul ular arly ly,, the the prop propert erties ies of a muni munici cipa palit lity, y, whet whethe herr real real or personal, which are necessary for public use cannot be attached and sold at execution sale to satisfy a money m oney judgment against the municipality. Municipal revenues are 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. 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 P99,743.94 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.
The court hereby orders petitioner Municipality of Makati to immediately pay Philippine Savings Bank, Inc. and private respondent the amount of P4,953,506.45. Petitioner is hereby required to submit to this Court a re port of its compliance with the foregoing order within a non-extendible period of SIXTY (60) DAYS from the date of receipt of this resolution.
