Scribd
Upload
25 views2 pages

DIGEST - (31) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JUDGE HIDALGO

The case involves Tarcila Laperal Mendoza's action against the Republic of the Philippines for the annulment of a title and deed of sale regarding a property. Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo was found to have violated constitutional rules by issuing a writ of execution against government funds, which are exempt from such actions. The ruling emphasizes that the State's consent to be sued does not equate to consent for unrestrained execution against it, highlighting the importance of protecting public funds.

Uploaded by

John Lorie Bacaling
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
25 views2 pages

DIGEST - (31) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JUDGE HIDALGO

The case involves Tarcila Laperal Mendoza's action against the Republic of the Philippines for the annulment of a title and deed of sale regarding a property. Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo was found to have violated constitutional rules by issuing a writ of execution against government funds, which are exempt from such actions. The ruling emphasizes that the State's consent to be sued does not equate to consent for unrestrained execution against it, highlighting the importance of protecting public funds.

Uploaded by

John Lorie Bacaling
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

- A.M. No. RTJ-05-1959 December 9, 2005 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.

JUDGE VICENTE A. HIDALGO

TOPIC: Execution of the Scope of Consent to be Sued

FACTS:
Tarcila Laperal Mendoza filed an action for the annulment or declaration of nullity of the title and
deed of sale, reconveyance and/or recovery of ownership and possession of a four thousand nine
hundred twenty-four-square meter (4,924.60 sq. m. to be exact) property against the Republic
of the Philippines. It is also known as the Arlegui Residence which housed two (2) Philippine
presidents and which now holds the Office of the Press Secretary and the News Information
Bureau.

In an Order dated 07 July 2003, Judge Hidalgo declared the Republic in default for failure of
Solicitor Gabriel Francisco Ramirez, the handling solicitor, to file the required Answer within the
period prayed for in his motion for extension dated 21 May 2003.

Ordering the Republic of the Philippines to pay ONE BILLION FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY MILLION
SIX HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT (₱1,480,627,688.00)
PESOS.

ISSUE: WON Judge Hidalgo violated the Constitution and the fundamental rule that government
funds are exempt from execution or garnishment.

RULING: YES, he violated the fundamental rule. In the case at bar, respondent Judge not only
failed to perform his duties in accordance with the Rules, but he also acted wilfully and in gross
disregard of the law and controlling jurisprudence. He was ignorant of the basic and simple
procedural rules by issuing the writ of execution and pronouncing the costs of suit against the
government. Verily, respondent Judge’s actions visibly indicate his lack of sufficient grasp of the
law.

For issuing the writ of execution and pronouncing the costs of the suit against the government,
we deem that the respondent Judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure under
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

DOCTRINE:
It is settled that when the State gives its consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily
consent to an unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when the State waives its immunity,
all it does, in effect, is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the state has
a liability. In Republic v. Villasor22 this Court, in nullifying the issuance of an alias writ of execution
directed against the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to satisfy a final and executory
judgment, has explained, thus— The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be
sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimant’s action "only up to
the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution" and that the power of the
Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be
seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious
considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the
correspondent appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services rendered by
the State cannot be allowed to paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their
legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.

You might also like