Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SUPREME COURT
Manila
PREFATORY STATEMENT
This is an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the Decision1
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 9, dated July 11,
1
A certified true copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “A”.
1
2006, in Civil Case No. CEB-31568 entitled “Gwendolyn F. Garcia vs.
Delfin P. Aguilar, et. al.” as well as from the Order2 from the RTC of Cebu
City, Branch 9, dated October 25, 2006 denying the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by herein Petitioners.
PARTIES
In its Order, the Regional Trial Court denied herein Petitioners’ Motion
for Reconsideration of the aforementioned RTC Decision.
Under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, and pursuant to the ruling
in Neypes vs. Court of Appeals3, herein Petitioners have 15 days from the
notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the
denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due
time after notice of the judgment.
Notice of the RTC Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed
by herein Petitioners was received by Petitioners, through their counsels, on
August 8, 2016; thus, Petitioners had until August 23, 2016 within which to
file the Petition.
Petitioners, therefore, are filing the instant Petition within the 15-day
reglementary period provided for under the Rules of Court.
In a Decision4 dated July 11, 2006, the Regional Trial Court rendered a
decision in favor of Respondent Garcia, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
4
Supra, Note 1.
4
An Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration was then filed by
Respondent Garcia on August 10, 2006.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
SUBMISSIONS
5
Supra, Note 2.
5
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
6
The Supreme court in the case of City of Lapu-Lapu vs. PEZA,6
elucidated that a special civil action for declaratory relief is filed for a
judicial determination of any question of construction or validity arising
from, and for a declaration of rights and duties, under any of the following
subject matters: a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute,
executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental
regulation.
However, a declaratory judgment may issue only if there has been "no
breach of the documents in question" (Emphasis ours).7 If the contract or
statute subject matter of the action has already been breached, the
appropriate ordinary civil action must be filed. 8
In the recent case of Aquino vs. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, the court
had the opportunity to explain that since the purpose of an action for
declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and
obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, or contract for their guidance
in the enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, and not to settle issues
arising from an alleged breach thereof, it may be entertained before the
breach or violation of the statute, deed or contract to which it refers.9
6
City of Lapu-Lapu vs. PEZA, G.R. No. 184203, November 26, 2014.
7
Republic vs. Roque, G.R. No. 204603, September 24, 2013.
8
Ollada vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-11357, May 31, 1962.
9
Aquino vs. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, G.R. No. 211356, September 29, 2014.
10
Tambunting vs. Sps. Sumabat, G.R. No. 144101 September 16, 2005.
7
Furthermore, in the case of Republic vs. CA11, the Supreme Court said
that a party cannot act, then ask the courts to declare that its action was not a
violation of its agreement with another person and, at the same time, seek to
enjoin the other party from revoking or cancelling their agreement.
A. Sections 306 and 346 of the Local Government Code are not
exceptions to Section 22, paragraph C.
This provision of law is clear and leaves no room for doubt, hence
there is no room for interpretation. It mandates that the local chief
executive cannot enter into contracts in behalf of the local government
without a corresponding authorization from the sanggunian concerned,
subject only to the instances where the Code provides otherwise.
On the other hand, Section 306 of the Local Government Code states
that:
9
Section 346 of the same statute further provides that:
10
It is therefore apparent and without question that Section 306 and
346 and Section 22 (c) diverge in application.
In her petition, petitioner admitted that the contracts entered into were
infrastructure contracts. As such, under the abovementioned provision, she
could not validly enter into such contracts without prior authorization
because the province was operating under a reenacted budget. Only the
annual appropriations for salaries and wages of existing positions, statutory
and contractual obligations, and essential operating expenses are
authorized to be disbursed. Infrastructure contracts not being one of those
authorized under the reenacted appropriation. Clearly then, petitioner has
violated the Local Government Code.
11
C. The invocation of lack of authorization requirement under R.A. No.
9184 by the RTC is improper.
R.A. No. 9184 comes into operation only when the local chief
executive already has the requisite authority to enter into a contract. It is
concerned with the procedure on whom the local chief executive will enter
into a contract with. Said law does not dwell on the authorization
requirement needed by the local chief executive precisely because it not
covered in said legislation. The invocation therefore of this law with
respect to the need for prior authorization from the sanggunian is off
tangent.
12
ARFEL JANE C. CABRADILLA
Roll No. 44403
IBP No. 9849 (Lifetime) Cebu City
MCLE Compliance No. III-0008600
PTR No. 1161031-5-8-2016-Cebu City
Telephone No. (032) 253-1890 local 101
E-mail Address: ajccabradilla@cdplawoffice.com
13
and by personal service, to:
14