8/11/2019 (016) Yujuico v. Atienza

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/016-yujuico-v-atienza 1/2

NABUAB, Neil L.1E

Teresita M. Yujuico, petitioner v. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR.,CALLEJO SR., Chairman, City School, TINGA, and Board of Manila, Dr. Ma. Chico-Nazario,JJ. LUISA S. QUIÑONES,Co-Chairman, City School Board, and Schools Division Superintendent,ROGER Promulgated: GERNALE, Member, CitySchool Board of Manila,HON. MANUEL M.ZARCAL, October 12, 2005(in substitution of ARLENEORTIZ),Member, City School Boardof Manila, BENJAMIN VALBUENA (In substitution of MILES ROCES), Member, City SchoolBoard of Manila, LIBERTY TOLEDO, Member, City School Board of Manila,HON. FRANCESCA GERNALE (In substitution of PERCIVAL FLORIENDO),Member, City School Board of Manila,ISABELITA SANTOS, Secretary, City School Board of Manila, VICENTE MACARUBBO(In substitution of  ISABELITA CHING),

Assistant Secretary, City School Board of Manila, CITY SCHOOL BOARD OFMANILA and JUDGE MERCEDES POSADA‐LACAP, in her capacity as PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL

TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 15, respondents

NATURE: Petition for certiorari

PONENTE: TINGA, J.

FACTS:⦁ On December 8, 1995, the City Council of Manila enacted an Ordinance to acquire by

negotiation and expropriation parcels of land owned and possessed by the petitioner,Teresita Yujuico, located along Solis St. near Juan Luna St. for utilization as a site for the

Francisco Benitez Elementary School.⦁ Ordinance provided that the amount will be allocated out of the Special Education Fund

(SEF) of the city.

⦁ The city filed a case for eminent domain against petitioner; granted.

⦁ Petitioner filed a motion for execution of judgment for the redeem of the justcompensation; granted.

⦁ City School Board (CSB) did not release the amount, thus Yujuico filed a petition forcontempt of court.

⦁ Petitioner filed petition for mandamus against members of the CSB; the court grantedrespondents petition for relief from judgment.

⦁ The expropriated property has been utilized as a school site for five years, yet theawarded just compensation has not been fully paid.

ISSUES:⦁ Whether or not the decision of the RTC on respondents’ petition for relief from judgment

in re petitioner’s petition for mandamus is appropriate.

⦁ Whether or not CSB has a personality separate and distinct from the city.

⦁ Whether or not the enactment of an ordinance to satisfy the appropriation of a finalmoney judgment rendered against an LGU may be compelled by mandamus.

1

8/11/2019 (016) Yujuico v. Atienza

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/016-yujuico-v-atienza 2/2

HELD:

1st issueNo. The respondents contend that petition for relief must be awarded because of the

negligence of one the SCB clerks in forwarding the notice to its counsels. Sections 2 and 3, Rule38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a petition for relief may be granted upon ashowing that (1) through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, a party has beenprevented from taking an appeal, and (2) the party has a good and substantial cause of action ordefense. The situation does not present a case of excusable negligence which would warrantrelief under Rule 38.

2nd issueNo. The same counsel, the OCLO, represented the city in the expropriation case and all,

except one, are respondents in the case at bar. Atty. Aquino manifested before that it is theamount has been appropriated by CSB for expropriation. The same counsel claims in the case atbar that it is actually the city which should be made liable for the payment of its obligations. Theabove circumstances, coupled with the rule that an act performed by counsel within the scope ofa “general or implied authority” is regarded as an act of the client, render the City and, through it,respondents in estoppel. Contrary to respondents’ claim, the law does not make the CSB an

entity independent from the City of Manila. The Local Government Code of 1991, the lawproviding for the creation of school boards.

3rd issueYes. It has been settled in Municipality of Makati v. CA. Mandamus is a remedy available

to a property owner when a money judgment is rendered in its favor and against a municipality orcity. Court will not condone petitioner’s blatant refusal to settle its legal obligation arising fromexpropriation proceedings it had in fact initiated.

2