Caption: Municipality of Makati vs.

CA 190 SCRA 206 GR # 89898-99 October 1, 1990 Facts of the Case: An expropriation proceeding was filed by the Municipality of Makati, herein petitioner, against the private property of Arceli Jo. In compliance to PD 42, the petitioner opened an account under its name at PNB depositing an amount of P417,510.00. The court fixed the appraised value of the expropriated property at P5,291,666.00 and an advanced payment was made in the amount of P338,160 leaving a balance of P4,953,506. After the decision becomes final and executory, the private respondent moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. A notice of garnishment was thereafter issued by the court to the PNB account. A manifestation was filed by the petitioner informing the court that the private respondent was no longer the true owner of the expropriated property. The court consolidated the ownership of the property to PSB as a mortgagee/purchaser. The private respondent and PSB agreed to divide the compensation due from the expropriation proceeding. The judge ordered PNB to immediately release to them the sum of P4,953.506 corresponding to the balance of the appraised value of the expropriated property. The PNB bank manager refused as he is waiting for the approval of their head office. The Municipality of Makati contends that its fund with DBP could neither be be garnished or levied upon execution for to do so would result to the disbursement of public funds without the proper appropriation required under the law. The lower court denied the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner ruling that the account with DBP of the petitioner was an account specifically opened for the expropriation proceeding. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the lower courts decision. A petition for review with a prayer for preliminary injunction was filed to the S.C. A temporary restraining order was issued by the S.C. Issue: Whether or not the PNB funds may be levied in the expropriation proceeding ? Ruling: The petitioner belatedly informed the court that there are two existing accounts with PNB. Account A was the one intended for the expropriation proceeding and account B is primarily intended for financing governmental functions and activities. Because account A has a fund that is insufficient to meet the remaining amount of its balance for the expropriation proceeding, it is unlawful to get the remaining balance from Account B without an ordinance appropriating said funds for expropriation purpose. Thus the court ruled that account A maybe levied but not account B. The respondents are without recourse however should the petitioner refuse to pay its remaining obligation. Where a municipality refuses without justifiable reason to effect payment of a final money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail the remedy of mandamus in order to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance and the corresponding disbursement of municipal funds for such purpose. Prepared by: Betty Cinco Culas