Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 729 views

    Aklan v. Jody King

    Uploaded by

    Pmb
    1. The Province of Aklan and Jody King Construction entered into a contract for port construction projects, with Aklan issuing additional work orders. 2. When Aklan did not pay Jody King's balance claim, Jody King filed in regular court and obtained a writ of execution. However, banks refused to honor the writ, citing laws on determining government debts. 3. Aklan filed petitions to assail the writ, which were dismissed. It argues the COA has primary jurisdiction over money claims against government per existing laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aklan v. Jody King

    Uploaded by

    Pmb
    729 views2 pages
    1. The Province of Aklan and Jody King Construction entered into a contract for port construction projects, with Aklan issuing additional work orders. 2. When Aklan did not pay Jody King's balance claim, Jody King filed in regular court and obtained a writ of execution. However, banks refused to honor the writ, citing laws on determining government debts. 3. Aklan filed petitions to assail the writ, which were dismissed. It argues the COA has primary jurisdiction over money claims against government per existing laws.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The Province of Aklan and Jody King Construction entered into a contract for port construction projects, with Aklan issuing additional work orders. 2. When Aklan did not pay Jody King's balance claim, Jody King filed in regular court and obtained a writ of execution. However, banks refused to honor the writ, citing laws on determining government debts. 3. Aklan filed petitions to assail the writ, which were dismissed. It argues the COA has primary jurisdiction over money claims against government per existing laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    729 views2 pages

    Aklan v. Jody King

    Uploaded by

    Pmb
    1. The Province of Aklan and Jody King Construction entered into a contract for port construction projects, with Aklan issuing additional work orders. 2. When Aklan did not pay Jody King's balance claim, Jody King filed in regular court and obtained a writ of execution. However, banks refused to honor the writ, citing laws on determining government debts. 3. Aklan filed petitions to assail the writ, which were dismissed. It argues the COA has primary jurisdiction over money claims against government per existing laws.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    AKLAN PROVINCE v.

    JODY KING CONSTRUCTION


    Doctrines:
    The COA has primary jurisdiction over money claims against government
    agencies and instrumentalities.
    Facts:
    The Province of Aklan (petitioner) and Jody King Construction and
    Development Corp. (respondent) entered into a contract for the design
    and construction of the Caticlan Jetty Port and Terminal (Phase I) and
    Passenger Terminal Building (Phase II) in Malay, Aklan. In the course of
    construction, petitioner issued variation/change orders for additional
    works. Jody King demanded for the payment of Aklans balance, but to no
    avail. Jody King filed a case in the RTC of Marikina City to collect the said
    balance. The Province of Aklan denied any unpaid balance and interest.
    The RTC favored Jody King, and issued a writ of execution against
    petitioner. Sheriff Gamboa served notices of garnishment on Land Bank of
    the Philippines, Philippine National Bank and Development Bank of the
    Philippines at their branches in Kalibo, Aklan for the satisfaction of the
    judgment debt from the funds deposited under the account of petitioner.
    Said banks, however, refused to give due course to the court order, citing
    the relevant provisions of statutes, circulars and jurisprudence on the
    determination of government monetary liabilities, their enforcement and
    satisfaction.
    Petitioner filed in the CA a petition for certiorari with application for
    temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction assailing the
    Writ of Execution. It was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 111754, which was
    dismissed as it found no grave abuse of discretion in the lower court's
    issuance of the writ of execution.
    The trial court denied petitioner's notice of appeal and motion for
    reconsideration. Thus, petitioner filed another petition for certiorari in the
    CA questioning the aforesaid orders denying due course to its notice of
    appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 114073, which was also dismissed
    because petitioner failed to provide valid justification for its failure to file a
    timely motion for reconsideration
    Issues:
    The applicability of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in this case.
    Held/Ratio:
    The doctrine of primary jurisdiction holds that if a case is such that its
    determination requires the expertise, specialized training and knowledge
    of the proper administrative bodies, relief must first be obtained in an
    administrative proceeding before a remedy is supplied by the courts even
    if the matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction. It applies where a
    claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever
    enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a
    regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an
    administrative agency. In such a case, the court in which the claim is
    sought to be enforced may suspend the judicial process pending referral of
    such issues to the administrative body for its view or, if the parties would
    not be unfairly disadvantaged, dismiss the case without prejudice.

    The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide the court in


    determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until
    after an administrative agency has determined some question or some
    aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court.
    As can be gleaned, respondent seeks to enforce a claim for sums of
    money allegedly owed by petitioner, a local government unit.
    Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Section 26 of
    Presidential Decree No. 1445, it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction
    over money claims against government agencies and instrumentalities.

    You might also like