THE Regional Trial Court (RTC) has dissolved its order taking possession of some Cebu City Government bank deposits to pay the heirs of Matilda Palicte, whose property the City took in 2001.

In a three-page order signed yesterday, RTC Judge Geraldine Faith Econg admitted that the amount garnished by her sheriff could be public funds and, therefore, exempt from garnishment.

Judge Econg instead directed the sheriff to go and identify Cebu City properties that are patrimonial, meaning money that is generated from City Government-owned assets and ventures.

Once this is done, she said, “the same may be brought to satisfy the judgment of this court in favor of the defendants Palicte.”

In the meantime, those affected will have to wait.

The City expropriated the 5,295-hectare Palicte property in 2001 for its urban poor settlement project. The lot was pegged at P23,782,500.

The Palictes, however, have not yet been completely paid. They went to court for remedy.

Econg ruled in the family’s favor and a garnishment order for P20.6 million was issued against four bank accounts in the City Government’s name.

The amount garnished covered the remaining principal balance of P14 million and over P6 million in interest.

Banks

The order, issued by RTC Branch 9 Sheriff IV Antonio Bellones, included the Development Bank of the Philippines, Postal Bank, Banco de Oro and Philippine Veterans Bank.

The City Government moved for reconsideration but it was denied.

In a July 8 resolution, Econg said the court can no longer defer the garnishment order because notice has already been served to the four banks where the City Government’s funds are deposited.

Yesterday’s order, while not affecting the validity of the Palicte heirs’ claim, sets back the timetable for the payment.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Yujuico vs. Atienza, promulgated on October 12, 2005, and its 1950 ruling in the Municipality of Paoay versus Manaois case precipitated the court’s ruling.

In the Manaois case, the High Court ruled that “properties of public use held by municipal corporations are not subject to levy and execution.”

This includes “public revenues of municipal corporations destined for the expenses of the municipality.”

The Atienza case, on the other hand, denies what is not part of public domain.

Not clear

“It is not clear that the amount garnished by the sheriff of this court is considered public funds or funds derived from income by the City of Cebu coming from its patrimonial properties,” the order said.

“Wherefore, the writ of garnishment issued by the sheriff of this court is hereby dissolved. The sheriff is directed to identify properties that are clearly patrimonial in nature and funds that are clearly sourced from patrimonial properties or income so that the same may be brought to satisfy the judgment of this court,” it added. (KNR)

For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here.

(November 26, 2008 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.