ROXAS

V.
REPUBLIC REAL ESTATE CORPORATION

GR NO. 208205, June 1, 2016

FACTS:

Atty. Roxas of RGR & Associates, counsel for RREC since August 6, 1990, led before
this court a complaint against the three CA Justices who nulli ed the Wire of Execution and
Sheri De Jesus Notice. The Complaint was for the Justices alleged misconduct and violation
of section 3 of RA no. 3019 in Relation to Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code.

Atty. Roxas also led a motion for inhibition against the three justices. The complaint
and the motion for inhibition were led without RREC’s authority.

June 29, 2009, RREC terminated the services of RGR & Associated (Atty. Roxas law
rm), due to loss of con dence and breach of trust.

RREC also led a manifestation informing the court that atty. Roxas complaint against
the CA justices was led without RREC’s knowledge and conformity.

July 16, 2013, The CA issued the resolution denying RREC and Pasay City’s motion for
Reconsideration and declaring Siguion Reyna as RREC’s rightful counsel of Record.

The CA denied the instant motion for reconsideration led by respondents RREC and
Pasay City. The court declares and recognizes the law rm of Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and
Ongsiako as RREC’s rightful counsel of record without prejudice to the payment of Atty. Roxas
of attorney’s fees based on the doctrine of quantum meruit (as much as he has deserved).

On August 1, 2013, Atty. Roxas led before this Court the Petition docketed as G.R. No.
208205, referring to it as a Petition for Review Pro Hac Vice (for or on this occasion only).

Atty. Roxas admits that he led his Pro Hac Vice Petition in his personal capacity and
without RREC's authority, Atty. Roxas asserts that RGR & Associates is RREC's rightful
counsel.

He assails the Court of Appeals' July 16, 2013 Resolution, which declared Siguion
Reyna as RREC's rightful counsel of record.

According to Atty. Roxas, the termination of RGR & Associates' legal services was
made in bad faith. RREC's engagement with his rm was made allegedly "on a contingent or a
'no cure, no pay' basis. Atty. Roxas prays for attorney's fees beyond quantum meruit.
Speci cally, he asks for "the full amount upon the terms and conditions of his contingency
contract with RREC.

September 5, 2013, RREC, through Siguion Reyna, led the Petition for Review on
Certiorari. RREC insists that it reclaimed 55 hectares.

September 24, 2013, RREC moved to dismiss/expunge the Pro Hac Vice Petition.
RREC states that Atty. Roxas' refusal to be discharged as counsel is highly irregular and
fi
ff
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 unethical, especially in light of his ling his own Petition assailing the Court of Appeals Decision
and Resolution. RREC argues that it did not consent to Atty. Roxas' ling, and on this score
alone, the Pro Hac Vice Petition should be denied or expunged.

October 21, 2013, Atty. Roxas led a Motion to Admit his Opposition/Comment on the
Motion to Dismiss/Expunge. This was granted by this Court.

The O ce of the Solicitor General led its Consolidated Comment on Atty. Roxas' Pro
Hac Vice Petition and on RREC's Petition for Review, to which Atty. Roxas belatedly led a
Motion to Admit Reply, as well as his Reply. These were granted and noted on August 11,
2014.

On March 2, 2015, RREC President Catalina B. Blanco led before this Court a Petition
on Final Execution and Settlement, a third pleading on the same case with the same set of
facts, without the aid of counsel as the company could no longer a ord Siguion Reyna's
services.

On April 22, 2015, Siguion Reyna led its Withdrawal of Appearance.

On March 2, 2016, Atty. Roxas led a Manifestation reiterating that the payment to
RREC and Pasay City should re ect its current real value. He argues that the award of P10.9
million should be equivalent to the value of the reclaimed land RREC could have purchased in
1962, which was 109 hectares at P10.00 per square meter.

ISSUES:
Whether or not, the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the Writ of Execution and
Sheri De Jesus' Notice of Execution and Notice to Pay as null and void;

RULINGS:

NO, The Court of Appeals correctly declared the Writ of Execution and Sheri De
Jesus' Notice null and void. We nd no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' February 27,
2009 Decision.

RREC's relentless pursuit of this case vexes this Court. Even afterRepublic v. Court of
Appeals had become nal and executory, RREC repeatedly led motions and petitions before
this Court despite our express prohibition on ling further pleadings.

The Court had already declared the agreement between RREC and Pasay City null and
void. Disregarding our pronouncements in Republic v. Court of Appeals, RREC continues to
insist that it had reclaimed a total of 55 hectares of the Cultural Center Complex.

This Court's November 25, 1998 Decision must be respected. Pursuant to the doctrine
of res judicata, our ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals is the settled law of this case.
ff
ffi
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fi
ff
fi
 We cannot allow RREC to waste any more of this Court's time and resources and
disturb what is already settled, lest this controversy never reaches its end.

This Court's decision cannot be amended by the trial court or the sheri . Absent an
order of remand, we cannot allow attempts to adjust or vary the terms of the judgment of this
Court. Neither the Regional Trial Court nor its sheri can, in any way, directly or indirectly, alter
this Court's November 25, 1998 Decision through a writ of execution or a notice purporting to
implement the writ.

A judgment, once nal, is immutable and unalterable.

The Court ruled that the Petition for Review dated September 5, 2013 is DENIED,
there being no reversible error in the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 27, 2009 and
Resolution dated July 16, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 102750.

The Petition for Final Execution and Settlement is EXPUNGED from the records of the
case for being a duplicate pleading, and Republic Real Estate Corporation is STERNLY
WARNED against ling redundant pleadings and clogging this Court's docket.
fi
fi
ff
ff
 PHILIPPINE NAVY GOLF CLUB INC. V. ABAYA
G.R. no. 235619, July 13, 2020

FACTS:

President Carlos Garcia established the Fort William McKinley later renamed as the Fort
Andres Bonifacio Military Reservation.  President Diosdado Macapagal issued Proclamation
No. 461,  the Philippine Navy developed a part of the village into a golf course which is
managed and controlled by the Philippine Navy Golf Club, Inc.

 The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) awarded lots to former
military o cers, namely: Merardo Abaya and Ruben Follosco in December 1996 and Angelito
Maglonzo and Elias Sta. Clara in November 1998

However, Abaya, et al. were unable to introduce any improvement because the
Philippine Navy and the Golf Club were already occupying the lands. Abaya, led an accion
reinvindicatoria against the Philippine Navy and the Golf Club before the RTC.

June 24, 2015, the RTC granted the complaint and ordered the Philippine Navy and the
Golf Club to turn over the lots to Abaya, and to pay rental fees.

 THe Philippine Navy and the Golf Club elevated the case to the CA. They claimed that
the lots are being used for public or quasi-public purposes and should not have been awarded
to Abaya.

July 10, 2017, the CA a rmed the ndings of the RTC. It explained that Proclamation
No. 461 declared the lots within the AFP O cer's Village available for disposition but no
subsequent proclamation reserved the lands for the use of the Golf Club or the development of
the golf course.

The Philippine Navy and the Golf Club sought reconsideration but was denied

ISSUE:

Whether or not, the Philippine Navy cannot be sued without its consent.

RULINGS:

NO, Philippine Navy cannot validly invoke the doctrine of state immunity from suit.

The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for
perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. the Philippine Navy cannot invoke the doctrine of state
immunity considering that it has no valid reason to deprive Abaya. The enjoyment of the lands
awarded to them.
ffi
ffi
fi
ffi
fi