Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 091 - Fajardo V Hon. Alfredo S. Lim

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Manalo
    115 views2 pages
    The Court held that: 1) Whether respondents should be held liable for damages is a factual issue outside the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. 2) Upon respondents filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals lost jurisdiction over the case, including a pending Motion for Reconsideration, regardless of whether the petition would be given due course. 3) The filing of the petition with the Supreme Court divested the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction before it could resolve the Motion for Reconsideration, to avoid conflicting resolutions between the two courts.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    091 - Fajardo v Hon. Alfredo S. Lim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Court held that: 1) Whether respondents should be held liable for damages is a factual issue outside the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. 2) Upon respondents filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals lost jurisdiction over the case, including a pending Motion for Reconsideration, regardless of whether the petition would be given due course. 3) The filing of the petition with the Supreme Court divested the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction before it could resolve the Motion for Reconsideration, to avoid conflicting resolutions between the two courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    115 views2 pages

    091 - Fajardo V Hon. Alfredo S. Lim

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Manalo
    The Court held that: 1) Whether respondents should be held liable for damages is a factual issue outside the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. 2) Upon respondents filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals lost jurisdiction over the case, including a pending Motion for Reconsideration, regardless of whether the petition would be given due course. 3) The filing of the petition with the Supreme Court divested the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction before it could resolve the Motion for Reconsideration, to avoid conflicting resolutions between the two courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LOCGOV - #91

    Fajardo v Hon. Alfredo S. Lim (2006)

    Facts:
    • During the incumbency of Mayor Lopez, the city of Manila undertook a “Land for the Landless Program.” The
    city purchased squatter-infested properties for the purpose of selling them to the occupants at cost. Among the
    properties were the lots in Tondo owned by petitioners.
    • The City Appraisal Committee approved Appraisal Resolution No. 1-5-1990 fixing the market value of the
    “Fajardo Estate” at P1,600.00 per square meter.
    • The city purchased six of the lots of the “Fajardo Estate” consisting of 8,772.40 square meters at P1,600.00 per
    square meter or for a total selling price of P13,955,840.00. The city also purchased the two remaining lots of the
    “Fajardo Estate” consisting of 11,666 square meters also for P1,600 per square meter or a total of
    P18,666,880.00.
    • Mayor Lopez then signed the disbursement voucher and PNB Check No. 906350 dated August 10, 1992 payable
    to petitioners. This was approved on pre-audit by the City Auditor. The City Cashier, the City Disbursing
    Officer, and the City Treasurer certified as to the availability of funds.
    • Newly elected Mayor Lim subsequently assumed office. He then appointed Marzan as the new City
    Administrator. As such, Marzan was required to countersign the check payment under Sections 344 and 345 of the
    Local Government Code of 1991. But Colonel Balagtas, Mayor Lim’s financial and budget consultant, advised
    Marzan not to sign the check as there seemed to be something suspicious about the transaction, given the large
    amount involved.
    • Mayor Lim instructed Marzan to withhold the check until the questionable purchase of the lots had been cleared.
    Marzan then informed petitioners that per order of the Mayor, their check could not be released. Marzan received
    a letter from petitioners demanding the release of the check. The City Legal Officer opined that there is no legal
    obstacle to release the check.
    • Mayor Lim reiterated his instruction not to release the check, explaining that he directed his aide, Herrera, to
    investigate the matter. Herrera merely made computations showing the difference between the acquisition cost
    and the selling price.
    • Petitioners filed with the RTC a Petition for Mandamus With Damages against Mayor Lim and Marzan.
    • RTC rendered its Decision in favor of petitioners. The Dispositive portion is as follows.
    WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and judgment is rendered as follows:
    1.      Respondent Marzan is ordered to countersign immediately PNB Check No. 906350 and,
    thereafter, to deliver the same check to Fajardo and Nogales; and if the same is not feasible, then
    should coordinate with the City Treasurer for the issuance of another check for the same amount
    as replacement of the old check;
    2.      Respondent Marzan is likewise ordered to pay in his personal capacity Nogales and Fajardo, the
    following sums:
     
    (a)     P800,000.00 as and for damages suffered because of lost income and investment
    opportunities for the non-issuance of the P18,666,880.00 check, with the legal interest
    from the filing of the petition until the same is fully paid;
    (b)     P200,000.00 as moral damages;
    (c)     P100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
    (d)     P50,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees; and
    (e)     The costs of suit.
     
    Respondent Lim is absolved of any civil liability for the non-issuance of the questioned check.

    • Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. Petitioners alleged that the award of damages should be
    increased and insisted that Mayor Lim should be held solidarily liable with Marzan. Mayor Lim and Marzan claimed
    that mandamus is not the proper remedy and maintained that the latter should not be held liable for damages.
    • CA affirmed the RTC judgment with the modification, deleting therefrom the award for damages, attorney’s fees,
    and costs of suit.
    • Petitioners filed a MR insisting that the trial court should not have deleted the award of damages. Respondents
    Mayor Lim and Marzan filed with the SC petitions for review on certiorari. It was denied on the ground that the
    CA did not commit any reversible error.
    • CA decision was not acted upon as it had lost jurisdiction when respondents filed their Petition for Review on
    Certiorari with the SC.

    Petitioner’s arguments: (Note: include petitioner’s relief, position, and legal basis)
    Petitioner: Rafael Fajardo and Rogelio Nogales, owners of the property
    On Damages: The CA should have held respondents liable for damages.
    On Jurisdiction: Until and unless a petition for review on certiorari is given due course by this Court, the Court of
    Appeals never loses jurisdiction over a case pending before it.

    Respondent’s arguments:
    Respondents: Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim and Ramon Marzan, former City Administrator of Manila
    On Mandamus and Damages: Mandamus is not the proper remedy. Marzan should not be held liable for damages.
    On Jurisdiction: When they filed with this Court their petition for review on certiorari, the CA lost jurisdiction over the
    case, specifically over petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration then pending before it. The CA thus deferred to the
    exercise by this court of its jurisdiction. Had the CA resolved petitioners’ MR, there could be a possibility that its
    Resolution and that of SC might be opposite to each other.

    Issue/s:
    (1) whether both respondents should be held liable jointly and severally for damages; and
    (2) whether the filing with this Court of a petition for review on certiorari divested the Court of Appeals of its
    jurisdiction

    Held/Ratio:
    On Damages
    This is a factual issue. The jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals, via Rule 45
    of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court is not a trier of facts.
    On Jurisdiction
    Respondents seasonably filed with the SC a Petition for Review on Certiorari. Upon the filing of this petition, the SC
    assumed jurisdiction over the case, regardless of whether or not the said petition would be given due course. CA had no
    more jurisdiction over the case.

    Digested by: DE LEON

    You might also like