Latest news with #SamuelGaerlan
GMA Network
3 days ago
- Business
- GMA Network
SC: Salaries of public officials may be garnished
'The Court deems it more wise to rule that the salaries of public officials are subject to garnishment not merely because they have lost their public character upon deposit, as previously held in numerous cases, but because they are not covered by the exemptions provided under existing laws and rules,' it said. The salaries of public officials may be garnished or legally collected to pay off their monetary obligations, the Supreme Court (SC) said. In a 9-page decision, the SC Third Division ruled that the salary of a Baguio city councilor can be garnished to pay his debt to another individual. 'The Court deems it more wise to rule that the salaries of public officials are subject to garnishment not merely because they have lost their public character upon deposit, as previously held in numerous cases, but because they are not covered by the exemptions provided under existing laws and rules,' it said. According to the court, the councilor was cleared of estafa charges but the regional trial court found him civilly liable and ordered him to pay the individual P308,000. The RTC allowed the garnishment of his salary. For his part, the councilor argued that his salary should not be collected as the funds were still considered government property until spent. However, both the regional trial court and the Court of Appeals stated that once a public official's salary is deposited into their personal bank account, it is no longer considered public funds. The SC affirmed the ruling. It said that under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, salaries can be garnished to settle debts. However, it said that an exception exists for manual laborers under Article 1708 of the Civil Code. 'The exemption is not even absolute for the salaries of laborers—only so much of their salaries, wages, or earnings within the four months preceding the levy as are necessary for the support of their family shall be exempt from garnishment,' it said. The decision, penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, was promulgated in February and made public in July. –NB, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
27-06-2025
- Business
- GMA Network
SC: Verbal sale of land valid if fully or partially carried out
A land sale made through a verbal or written agreement can be valid and binding as long as it has been partly or fully carried out, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled. In an 18-page decision, the SC Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between a man and his nephew. The Court said it found the sale to be valid even without a written contract because the nephew had already received the land title, moved into the property, and improved it. The case stemmed from the reclamation case filed by the man's children, who were initially unaware of the property. According to the court, the man's children only discovered the property in 2007 when they received a notice to pay real estate taxes. They found that their cousin was living there. For his part, the nephew said he bought the land from his uncle when he was still alive. After his uncle's death, the nephew kept paying installments to his uncle's brother. He also presented the land title as proof. Both the regional trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the children while the SC reversed their decisions. "Under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforced in court. This written document serves as proof that both parties agreed to the sale. However, the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partly carried out. In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding, and witnesses may be allowed to testify to prove that the sale happened," the SC said. The SC added that taking possession of the land and making improvements on it are strong signs that a verbal sale had already taken place. Thus, buyers who are already living on the property can use the verbal agreement as a legal basis for their possession, even without a written contract, it added. The decision, penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, was promulgated in April 2025 and made public in June 2025.—LDF, GMA Integrated News
