GR 167741; (July, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167741; July 12, 2007
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Maj. Gen. Carlos Flores Garcia, Clarita Depakakibo Garcia, Ian Carl Depakakibo Garcia, Juan Paulo Depakakibo Garcia, Timothy Depakakibo Garcia and The Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), Respondents.
FACTS
The Republic filed a petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties against Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia and his family before the Sandiganbayan. The Republic simultaneously applied for a writ of preliminary attachment but asserted it was exempt, as the sovereign State, from posting the attachment bond required by the Rules of Court. The Sandiganbayan, in a resolution dated October 29, 2004, ordered the issuance of the writ but required the Republic to post a ₱1 million bond. The Republic complied under protest to avoid delay and subsequently filed a motion for partial reconsideration, reiterating its exemption. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion in its January 14, 2005 resolution, holding that nothing in the current Rules of Court exempts the Republic and that the old case of Tolentino v. Carlos, which recognized such an exemption, needed reexamination as it was decided under the century-old Code of Civil Procedure. The Republic’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
ISSUE
Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in rejecting the Republic’s claim of exemption from filing an attachment bond for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the established principle that the State, represented by the Republic, is exempt from posting an attachment bond. While Sections 3 and 4, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court generally require an applicant to file a bond to answer for costs and damages should the attachment later be found wrongful, this requirement does not apply to the State. The Court, citing Tolentino v. Carlos, reiterated the doctrine that the government is presumed to be always solvent and able to satisfy any eventual judgment for damages; thus, it is not required to give security. The Sandiganbayan’s disregard of this controlling jurisprudence, which remains valid and unreversed, constituted an act contrary to law. Its attempt to “reexamine” and effectively set aside a standing Supreme Court doctrine was a usurpation of power, as lower courts are bound by the rulings of the highest court. The error was not a mere error of judgment but a grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court annulled the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions and ordered the release of the bond posted by the Republic.