G.R. No. 167741
July 12, 2007
REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
MAJ. GEN. CARLOS FLORES GARCIA, CLARITA DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA, IAN CARL DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA, JUAN PAULO DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA, TIMOTHY DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA and THE SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), Respondents.
FACTS: This petition for certiorari assails the January 14, 2005 and March 2, 2005 resolutions of the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0193
Civil Case No. 0193 was a petition
for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties, with a verified urgent
ex-parte application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment,
filed by the Republic of the Philippines against Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia,
his wife and
children in
the Sandiganbayan on October 27, 2004. In praying for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary attachment, the Republic
maintained that, as a sovereign political entity, it was exempt from filing the
required attachment bond.
On October 29, 2004, the Sandiganbayan issued a resolution ordering the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against the properties of the
Garcias upon the filing by the Republic of a ₱1 million attachment bond. On
November 2, 2004, the Republic posted the required attachment bond to avoid any
delay in the issuance of the writ as well as to promptly protect and secure its
claim.
On December 7, 2004, the Republic
filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the October 29, 2004 resolution
claiming that it was exempt from filing an attachment bond and praying for the
release thereof.
In a resolution dated January 14, 2005, the Sandiganbayan ruled that there was nothing in the Rules of Court that
exempted the Republic from filing an attachment bond. It reexamined Tolentino
v. Carlos which was invoked by the Republic to
justify its claimed exemption. That case was decided under the old Code of
Civil Procedure enacted more than a century ago.
The Sandiganbayan denied the Republic’s motion. Reconsideration was also
denied in a resolution
ISSUE: WON Sandiganbayan has the power to re-examine jurisprudence and not
follow its doctrine
RULING: NO.
Under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 57 of the Rules of
Court, before a writ of attachment may issue, a bond must first be filed to
answer for all costs which may be adjudged to the adverse party and for the
damages he may sustain by reason of the attachment. However, this rule does not cover the State.
In Tolentino, this
Court declared that the State as represented by the government is exempt from
filing an attachment bond on the theory that it is always solvent.
Section 427 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that before the
issuance of a writ of attachment, the applicant therefor or any person in his
name, should file a bond in favor of the defendant for an amount not less than
₱400 nor more than the amount of the claim, answerable for damages in case it
is shown that the attachment was obtained illegally or without sufficient
cause; but in the case at bar the one who applied for and obtained the
attachment is the Commonwealth of the Philippines, as plaintiff, and under the
theory that the State is always solvent it was not bound to post the required
bond and the respondent judge did not exceed his jurisdiction in
exempting it from such requirement. x x x (emphasis supplied)
The Sandiganbayan thus erred when it disregarded the foregoing
presumption and instead ruled that the Republic should file an attachment bond.
The error was not simply an error of judgment but grave abuse of discretion.
There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is done contrary to the
Constitution, the law or jurisprudence. Here,
the Sandiganbayan’s January 14, 2005 resolution was clearly contrary to Tolentino.
Worse, the Sandiganbayan transgressed the Constitution and arrogated
upon itself a power that it did not by law possess. All courts must take their
bearings from the decisions and rulings of this Court. Tolentino has
not been superseded or reversed. Thus, it is existing jurisprudence and
continues to form an important part of our legal system. Surprisingly, the Sandiganbayan
declared that Tolentino "need(ed) to be carefully reexamined in
the light of the changes that the rule on attachment ha(d) undergone through
the years."
On this, Article VIII, Section
4(3) of the Constitution provides:
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved
with the concurrence of majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case
without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required
number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc;
Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court
in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified
or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. (emphasis
supplied)
The Constitution mandates that only this Court sitting en banc may
modify or reverse a doctrine or principle of law laid down by the Court in a
decision rendered en banc or in division. Any court, the
Sandiganbayan included, which renders a decision in violation of this
constitutional precept exceeds its jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Sandiganbayan could not have validly "reexamined,"
much less reversed, Tolentino. By doing something it could not
validly do, the Sandiganbayan acted ultra vires and committed
grave abuse of discretion.
Comments
Post a Comment