Course Hero Logo

AGENCY-DIGEST 4.docx - 16. ATTY. ROMEO G. ROXAS v. REPUBLIC...

Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.

16.ATTY. ROMEO G. ROXAS v. REPUBLIC REALESTATE CORPORATIONGR No. 208205 Jun 01, 2016FACTS:InRepublic v. Court of Appeals,the Republicof the Philippines, was ordered to pay PasayCity and Republic Real Estate Corporation thesum of TEN MILLION NINE HUNDREDTWENTY-SIX THOUSAND SEVENTY-ONEANDTWENTY-NINECENTAVOS(PIO.926,071.29) PESOS, plus interestthereon of six (6%) percent per annum fromMay 1, 1962 until full payment, which amountshall be divided by Pasay City and RREC,share and share alike.Republic v. Court of Appealsbecame final andexecutory on July27, 1999.Sheriff IV Reyner S. DeJesus (Sheriff DeJesus) issued a Notice of Execution andNotice to Payagainst the Republic forP49,173,064,201.17 instead of the P10.9millionordered by this Court, to be dividedbetween RREC and Pasay City.Sheriff De Jesus based his computation on aformulathat set the Philippine peso today atP51.58 for every one (1) peso in 1962, withcompounding interests.He did not attach hissource for the alleged real value.The Republic filed before the Regional TrialCourt a Very Urgent Motion to Quash the Writof Execution and the Notice of Execution andNotice to Pay,but it was denied. The trial courtlikewise denied the Republic's Motion forReconsideration.The Republic filed before the Court of Appealsa Petition for Certiorariassailing the trialcourt's Orders and seeking injunction againstthe writ of execution. CA granted.The Court of Appeals held that Sheriff DeJesus' "issuances wantonly disregarded andgrossly violated [Supreme Court AdministrativeCircular] No. 10-2000 dated October 25,2000 . . . [and] [Commission on Audit] CircularNo. 2001-002 dated July 31, 2001,”whichgovern the execution of government funds orproperties. Thus, the Notice of Execution andNotice to Pay is "patently null and void."Atty. Romeo G. Roxas, counsel for RREC filedbefore this Court a Complaintagainst the three(3) Court of Appeals Justiceswho nullified theWrit of Execution and Sheriff De Jesus' Notice.ISSUE:Whether the CA erred in declaringthe Writ ofExecution and Sheriff De Jesus' Notice of Executionand Notice to Pay as null and voidRULING:NO.The Court of Appeals correctly declared the Writ ofExecution and Sheriff De Jesus' Notice null andvoid.This Court's decision cannot be amended by thetrial court or the sheriff. Absent an order of remand, wecannot allow attempts to adjust or vary the terms of thejudgment of this Court.Neither the Regional Trial Courtnor its sheriff can, in any way, directly or indirectly, alterthis Court's November 25, 1998 Decision through awrit of execution or a notice purporting to implementthe writ.Canon VI, Section 6 of the Code of Conduct for CourtPersonnel states that “[c]ourt personnel shallexpeditiously enforce rules and implement orders ofthe courtwithin the limits of their authority.” The sheriffcannot act as a party’s agent. He or she can only actas an officer of the court which he or she represents.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 3 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Summer
Professor
N/A
Tags
Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Estoppel

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture