This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for the
immediate reimbursement of the garnished sum of P209,076.00, constituting funds of petitioner
Bureau on deposit with the Philippine National Bank as official depository of Philippine
Government funds, to the said petitioner's account with the bank, so as to forestall the
dissipation of said funds, which the government had allocated to its public highways and
72 infrastructure projects.
The Court ordered on January 31, 1969 the issuance of the writ against the principal
respondents solidarily, including respondent judge therein so that she would take forthwith all the
necessary measures and processes to compel the immediate return of the said government
funds to petitioner Bureau's account with respondent bank.5
In compliance with the writ, respondent bank restored the garnished sum of P209,076.00 to
6 petitioner Bureau's account with it. The primary responsibility for the reimbursement of said
amount to petitioner Bureau's account with the respondent bank, however, rested solely on
respondent estate, since it is the judgment creditor that received the amount upon the
Strangely enough, as appears now from respondent bank's memorandum in lieu of oral
argument,7 what respondent bank did, acting through respondent Coruña as its counsel, was not
to ask respondent estate to reimburse it in turn in the same amount, but to file with the probate
court with jurisdiction over respondent estate,8 a motion for the estate to deposit the said amount
with it, purportedly in compliance with the writ.
Respondent estate thereupon deposited with respondent bank as a savings account the sum of
P125,446.00, on which the bank presumably would pay the usual interest, besides. As to the
balance of P83,630.00, this sum had been in the interval paid as attorney's fees to Atty. Jesus B.
Santos, counsel for the estate, by the administrator, allegedly without authority of the probate
court.9 Accordingly, respondent estate has not reimbursed the respondent bank either as to this
last amount, and the bank has complacently not taken any steps in the lower court to require
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.
- Fall '14