Scribd
Upload
166 views2 pages

RP Vs Hidalgo (Scope of Consent) - Case DIgest

This document summarizes a case between RP vs. Hidalgo. A judge, Vicente Hidalgo, ruled in favor of a plaintiff in a case against the Philippine government. However, the Supreme Court found Judge Hidalgo administratively liable because he ignored legal precedent that governments cannot be made to pay attorney fees or costs of suits. The Supreme Court fined Hidalgo P20,000 for gross ignorance of the law, noting governments cannot have funds seized to satisfy judgments due to public policy concerns around maintaining public services.

Uploaded by

Angelita Tohol Malan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
166 views2 pages

RP Vs Hidalgo (Scope of Consent) - Case DIgest

This document summarizes a case between RP vs. Hidalgo. A judge, Vicente Hidalgo, ruled in favor of a plaintiff in a case against the Philippine government. However, the Supreme Court found Judge Hidalgo administratively liable because he ignored legal precedent that governments cannot be made to pay attorney fees or costs of suits. The Supreme Court fined Hidalgo P20,000 for gross ignorance of the law, noting governments cannot have funds seized to satisfy judgments due to public policy concerns around maintaining public services.

Uploaded by

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

RP VS.

HIDALGO
12/9/05

FACTS:

On 02 June 1999, Tarcila Laperal Mendoza filed an action for the annulment or declaration of
nullity of the title and deed of sale, 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.

The case was initially dismissed by the presiding Judge of the RTC (Branch 35) on the ground
of state immunity. Upon the inhibition of the presiding judge of the RTC (Branch 35), the case was
re-raffled to the RTC Branch 37, with respondent Vicente A. Hidalgo as presiding judge. A petition
for certiorari was filed with the Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded
the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court sustained the Court of Appeals
decision.

On August 27, 2003, Judge Hidalgo rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff Mendoza declaring
the deed of sale and transfer certificate of title null and void defendant Republic of the Philippines to
pay a just compensation in the sum of P143,600,000.00 PESOS, and P1,480,627,688.00
representing the reasonable rental for the use of the subject property.

The Solicitor General maintained that plaintiff's cause of action has long prescribed and is
legally barred by laches, and that the title registered in the name of the Republic has become
indefeasible.
 
The respondent Judge denied the motion for new trial and appeal on the ground that   it was filed
beyond the reglementary period.

The Republic filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Hidalgo on the
grounds that respondent judge assumed jurisdiction and took cognizance of the plaintiff's complaint
despite a clear showing that the action had long prescribed and is already barred by laches and that
respondent judge violated the Constitution and the fundamental rule that government funds are
exempt from execution or garnishment. The Republic avers that the respondent Judge is liable for
these unjustified and irregular acts which constitute gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge is correct in declaring that the government is answerable to
the atty’s fees of the plaintiff and other costs of the suit

HELD: NO!

  As early as 15 November 1918, we ruled in the case of Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation v. Rafferty  that no costs shall be allowed against the government of the Philippine
Islands where the government is the unsuccessful party. 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. Villasor, Supreme Court said
that 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. 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

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo administratively liable for gross
ignorance of the law and is accordingly fined the amount of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy