7/28/2019 Santos vs Yatco CD Correct

1/1

Article IX (B), Section 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,

instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled

corporations with original charters. (2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made onlyaccording to merit and fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions

which are policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive

examination. (3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspendedexcept for cause provided by law. (4) No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage,directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign. (5) The right to self-

organization shall not be denied to government employees. (6) Temporary employees of the

Government shall be given such protection as may be provided by law.

Facts:

Petitioner files for certiorari to revoke the order of respondent Judge Yatco for cancelling hisprevious order for execution on the parcel of land owned by the petitioner. The said parcel of

land is being occupied by Fernando Mendoez with an agreement to pay in installment the said

land to the petitioners and that he shall voluntarily vacate the land and the payments hepreviously made shall be forfeited in favor of the plaintiff. A civil case was filed by the petitioner

against Mendoez for failure to pay as per agreement of both parties. Petitioner later filed a

motion for execution to take the land back. Defendant Mendoez moved for postponement to

give both parties sufficient time to come to an agreement which was allowed by the respondentjudge. It was settled by both parties that Mendoez will secure a GSIS loan however when he

was ready to make the payment the petitioner refused to abide with their agreement and now

asking for a higher amount of money for payment. Finding no justification on the issuance of thewrit of execution, Judge Yatco quashed said order hence this petition for certiorari based on lack

of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent judge acted in lack of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion

RULING:

The court held that any judge has the jurisdiction to quash any writ of execution issued by him

especially when it was improvidently issued. There is no abuse of discretion by the judge sincethe defendant made an opposition and proved that there is subsequent verbal agreement that

amended the compromise hence the execution cannot be validly decreed without a hearing. The

consequent ability of the defendant to meet his obligations by securing a GSIS loan also justifies

the courts refusal to eject him from the premises by an execution.