Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION v. DANILO MORALES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 181792 2014-04-21	STAR SPECIAL WATCHMAN v. PUERTO PRINCESA CITY MENDOZA, J.
In fine, it was grave error for the CA to reverse the RTC and direct immediate implementation of the writ of execution through garnishment of the funds of petitioners.[34]
	GR No. 185918 2012-04-18	LOCKHEED DETECTIVE v. UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On reconsideration, however, the CA issued the assailed Amended Decision. It held that without departing from its findings that the funds covered in the savings account sought to be garnished do not fall within the classification of public funds, it reconsiders the dismissal of the petition in light of the ruling in the case of National Electrification Administration v. Morales[18] which mandates that all money claims against the government must first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA).
	AM No. RTJ-10-2225 2011-09-06	ATTY. TOMAS ONG CABILI v. JUDGE RASAD G. BALINDONG PER CURIAM
On April 17, 2009, the respondent Judge conducted a hearing on the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Thereafter, he required MSU to file a memorandum in support of its application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.[10] On April 21, 2009, Sheriff Gaje moved to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.[11] The respondent Judge thereafter granted the motion and dismissed the case.[12]
	GR No. 166508 2009-10-02	NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION v. MARIO ABAYARI PERALTA, J.
While the April 17, 2001 Decision of the trial court ordered petitioner to pay the benefits claimed by respondents, it by no means ordered the payment of a specific sum of money and instead merely directed petitioner to extend to respondents the benefits under R.A. No. 6758 and its implementing rules. Being a special judgment, the decision may not be executed in the same way as a judgment for money handed down in an ordinary civil case governed by Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules Court which sanctions garnishment of debts and credits to satisfy a monetary award. Garnishment is proper only when the judgment to be enforced is one for payment of a sum of money. It cannot be employed to implement a special judgment such as that rendered in a special civil action for mandamus.[40]
	GR No. 166508 2009-10-02	NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION v. MARIO ABAYARI PERALTA, J.
Be that as it may, assuming for the sake of argument that execution by garnishment could proceed in this case against the funds of petitioner, it must bear stress that the latter is a government-owned or controlled corporation with a charter of its own. Its juridical personality is separate and distinct from the government and it can sue and be sued in its name.[41] As such, while indeed it cannot evade the effects of the execution of an adverse judgment and may not ordinarily place its funds beyond an order of garnishment issued in ordinary cases,[42] it is imperative in order for execution to ensue that a claim for the payment of the judgment award be first filed with the Commission on Audit (COA).[43]