MIGUEL YUVIENGCO, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. PRIMITIVO GONZALES, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

On November 13, 1956, one Geronimo V. Maluto, filed against the
Province of Cavite and Vicente Francisco, as District Engineer of
Cavite, a complaint for the recovery of P4,240.00, representing the
unpaid balance of costs of the construction of two school projects,
with legal interest at the rate of 6% from September 13, 1954 plus
P1,500 as damages.

After “Answer” was filed and the issues
joined, trial was held. Respondent court found that the evidence and
the law supported the validity of the said plaintiff’s claim and thus
ordered the payment of the amounts prayed for. The said judgment became
final and executory.

Previous to the filing of this action,
on the alleged reason of lack of funds, the Province of Cavite had
failed to meet the obligation alluded to in the judgment. On September
20, 1954, however, it adopted a resolution authorizing payment of the
said obligation subject to the condition of availability of funds. On
October 29, 1958, respondent court ordered the Provincial Treasurer of
Cavite to deposit the money in the amount of P6,737.70 with the court
with the warning that he shall be ordered arrested upon failure to
comply with said order. Compliance with the aforecited order was not
made hence the said court on October 30, 1958 ordered the arrest of
said Provincial Treasurer.

On November 3, 1958, respondent
court issued another order upon the plaintiff’s urgent motion for
compliance showing that non-compliance, with the first order was caused
by the Provincial Treasurer’s alleged sickness and absence from office.
The latter order commanded the Assistant Provincial Treasurer of Cavite
to act in place of the Provincial Treasurer and deposit with the court
the sum of P6,737.70. The said order also contained a warning that said
officer would be held in contempt of court in case of non-compliance.

In the present petition, it is argued that the abovementioned orders
are arbitrary and capricious; that the reasons why no payment or
deposit therefor was made are: 1. lack of available funds; 2. such
payment would make the petitioners commit a crime inasmuch as the law^[1]
provides that no disbursement of funds should be made without any
appropriation; 3. the petitioners (the Provincial Treasurer and the
Assistant Provincial Treasurer) are not parties to the case (the proper
party against whom execution should have been made being allegedly the
Province of Cavite).

Against the argument of lack of funds,
the records reveal that when respondent Judge, on August 15, 1958,
appointed a commissioner to investigate the financial condition of the
Provincial Government, the said Judge received a definite answer from
the Assistant Provincial Treasurer that the Provincial Treasury had
enough funds already appropriated and the claim in question could be
paid from the current appropriation if the Auditor General would
approve the said payment; that when the matter was referred to the
Auditor General there was the response that the said claim could be
paid from the current appropriation of the province. (Please see
Annexes “I”, “II”, “III”, “IV”, “V”, “VI” and “X”.)

Petitioners’ contention that payment of the claim in question would violate Sec. 2089^[2]
of the Revised Administrative Code is completely unreasonable. The fact
is that the Provincial Board, in compliance with the decision dated
December 14, 1957, passed Resolution No. 42, on February 7, 1958;
authorizing the Provincial Treasurer to pay the adjudicated claim from
any funds available during the current fiscal year and in the absence
of such funds, to charge it temporarily against A-8-5 (deferred
charges). Funds denominated A-8-5 appear to be the current
appropriation of the province. Knowing because they had always alleged
in the hearing in the court below before the order of arrest of the
Provincial Treasurer was issued on October 30, 1958, and before the
order to deposit directed to the Assistant Provincial Treasurer was
issued on November 3, 1958, that payment out of current appropriations
need the approval of the Auditor General, petitioners did not take any
step to get such approval (despite the Resolution of the Board to pay
such claim). They sat on the Board Resolution. It was claimant who
procured the Auditor General’s approval on November 5, 1958. The claim
furthermore is in pursuance of a court judgment or order that has found
the claim valid and demandable.

It is illogical for
petitioners to contend that the Provincial Treasurer and the Assistant
Provincial Treasurer are not parties to the case. For, in a very real
sense, indeed they are, because they are the legitimate custodians of
the public funds of said province, the very officials in charge of the
disbursement of all provincial funds.

Petitioners’ willful
disobedience and defiance to respondent court’s order is irreverence of
the courts dignity. In the maintenance of the respect due to it,
respondent court was correct in the imposition of the orders of arrest.

In view of the foregoing, the orders under consideration are found
proper. Costs are to be charged against the petitioners. So ordered.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
Sec 2089 of the Revised Administrative Code of the Phil.—Duties of the
Provincial Treasurers and/or Assistant Provincial Treasurers.—”To have
charge of the disbursement of all Provincial Funds and other funds the
custody of which may be entrusted to him by law or other competent
authority * * *.

^[2] Ibid.