Star Special Watchman and Detective Agency v.
Puerto Princesa City
Facts:
Petitioners were the owners of 2 parcels of land in Puerto Princess City covered by 2
TCTs. These were subsequently subdivided into 7 lots.
Before Puerto Princesa became a city it was a military establishment
Petitioners filed an action for Payment of Just Compensation against the mayor of Puerto
Princesa before the RTC. Thereafter the RTC ruled in favor of petitioners and ordered the
City of Puerto Princesa to pay for the land that it used.
The decision became final and executor and a writ of execution was issued, directing the
City of Puerto Princessa to pay ₱17,000,000.00.
Respondents initially appropriated ₱2,000,000.00 representing the first payment of the
petitioner’s claim.
Petitioner wrote a letter informing the respondents that they had not received any further
payments after the initial ₱2,000,000.00 deposit and requested that payment of
₱500,000.00 be made monthly until the remaining balance was at ₱10,000,000.00.
Petitioner noted that on-compliance would make the outstanding total amount
immediately due and demandable.
₱12,000,000.00 was paid and received by petitioners on the basis of the certification
issued by the City Treasurer.
Petitioners, thereafter filed a complaint against respondents for collection of unpaid just
compensation.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. The decision became final and executory, and
petitioners a motion to order the delivery of the garnished account of respondent and a
motion to order respondents to appropriate funds for the payment of money
The RTC issued an order denying both motions on the ground that pursuant to the Local
Government Code, government funds could not be subjected to execution and levy, or to
garnishment for that matter, unless there was a corresponding appropriation law or
ordinance.
But the RTC ordered respondents to immediately pay petitioners their dues.
Petitioners filed a motion to declare respondents in indirect contempt of court for their
failure to comply with the decision of the RTC despite the issuance of a writ of execution
against them. However such motion was denied by the court.
Petitioners wrote a letter to COA requesting that it order respondents to pay them the
amount adjudged, and subsequently, petitioners filed a formal claim with COA. Hence
this petition.
Issues:
Whether a writ of mandamus is proper to compel respondents to pay petitioners the judgment
debt.
Ruling:
No.
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the
name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to
some corporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein
specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is
directed or from operation of law.
A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel an official to do anything which is not his
duty to do or which it is his duty not to do, or to give to the applicant anything to which
he is not entitled by law. Nor will mandamus issue to enforce a right which is in
substantial dispute or as to which a substantial doubt exists, although objection raising a
mere technical question will be disregarded if the right is clear and the case is
meritorious.
As a rule, mandamus will not lie in the absence of any of the following grounds:
o that the court, officer, board, or person against whom the action is taken
unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins
as a duty resulting from office, trust, or station; or
o that such court, officer, board, or person has unlawfully excluded
petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is
entitled.
On the part of the relator, it is essential to the issuance of a writ of
mandamus that he should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded
and it must be the imperative duty of respondent to perform the act
required.
Also, for a writ of mandamus to issue, there should be no plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law other than the remedy of mandamus being invoked.
In this case, the legal remedy is to seek relief with the COA.
Considering that the COA still retained its primary jurisdiction to adjudicate money
claim, petitioners should have filed a petition for certiorari with this Court. The COA’s
refusal to act did not leave the petitioners without any remedy at all. Mandamus is the
wrong remedy.
