Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Republic Vs Villasor
Republic Vs Villasor
Facts:
The decision that was rendered in favor of respondents P.J.
Kiener Co., Ltd, Gavino Unchuan and International
Construction Corporation was declared final and executory
by Respondent Hon. Guillermo P. Villasor.
Pursuant to the said declaration, the corresponding Alias Writ
of Execution was issued. And for the strength of this writ, the
provincial sheriff served notices of garnishment with several
banks, specially on the 'monies due the Armed Forces of the
Philippines in the form of deposits; the Philippines Veterans
Bank received the same notice of garnishment.
The funds of the AFP on deposit with the banks are public
funds duly appropriated and allocated for the payment of
pensions of retireees, pay and allowances of military and
civillian personnel and for maintenance and operations of AFP.
Petitioner filed a petition against Villasor for acting in excess
jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the
issuance of a Writ of Execution against the properties of AFP,
hence the notices and garnishments are null and void.
Issue:
Whether or not the Writ of Execution issued by respondent
Judge Villasor is valid.
Held:
No
Ratio:
What was done by respondent Judge is not in conformity with
the dictates of the Constitution. It is a fundamental postulate
of constitutionalism flowing from the juristic concept of
sovereignty that the state and its government is immune from
suit unless it gives its consent. A sovereign is exempt from
suit not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory
but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no
legal right as against the authority that makes the law on
which the right depends.
The Republic of the Philippines in this certiorari and
prohibition proceeding challenges the validity of an order
issued by respondent Judge Guillermo P. Villasor, then of the
Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch I, 1 declaring a decision
final and executory and of an alias writ of execution directed
against the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
subsequently issued in pursuance thereof, the alleged ground
being excess of jurisdiction, or at the very least, grave abuse
of discretion. As thus simply and tersely put, with the facts
being undisputed and the principle of law that calls for
application indisputable, the outcome is predictable. The
Republic of the Philippines is entitled to the writs prayed for.
Respondent Judge ought not to have acted thus. The order
thus impugned and the alias writ of execution must be
nullified.
In the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines on July
7, 1969, a summary of facts was set forth thus: "7. On July 3,
1961, a decision was rendered in Special Proceedings No.
2156-R in favor of respondents P. J. Kiener Co., Ltd., Gavino
Unchuan, and International Construction Corporation, and
against the petitioner herein, confirming the arbitration award
in the amount of P1,712,396.40, subject of Special
Proceedings. 8. On June 24, 1969, respondent Honorable
Guillermo P. Villasor, issued an Order declaring the aforestated
Issue:
1. Whether or not the writ of attachment against TESDA and
its funds, to cover PROVIs claim against TESDA is valid?
2. Whether or not TESDA is covered by the principle of State
Immunity?
Holding:
1.
2.
No
Yes
Ruling:
1. Public funds cannot be the object of garnishment
proceedings even if the consent to be sued had been
previously granted and the state liability adjudged.
Even assuming that TESDA entered into an implied
consent with PROVI to be sued, the funds are still public in
nature.
2.
ATO vs RAMOS
a
it
Sayson VS Singson
The real party in interest before this Court in
this certiorari proceeding to review a decision of the Court of
First Instance of Cebu is the Republic of the Philippines,
although the petitioners are the public officials who were
named as respondents 1 in a mandamus suit below. Such is
the contention of the then Solicitor General, now Associate
Justice, Felix V. Makasiar, 2 for as he did point out, what is
involved is a money claim against the government, predicated
on a contract. The basic doctrine of non-suability of the
government without its consent is thus decisive of the
controversy. There is a governing statute that is
controlling. 3 Respondent Felipe Singson, the claimant, for
reasons known to him, did not choose to abide by its terms.
That was a fatal misstep. The lower court, however, did not
see it that way. We cannot affirm its decision.
As found by the lower court, the facts are the following:
"In January, 1967, the Office of the District Engineer
requisitioned various items of spare parts for the repair of a D8 bulldozer, ... . The requisition (RIV No. 67/0331) was signed
by the District Engineer, Adventor Fernandez, and the
Requisitioning Officer (civil engineer), Manuel S. Lepatan. ... It
was approved by the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, Antonio V. Raquiza. It is noted in the
approval of the said requisition that "This is an exception to
the telegram dated Feb. 21, 1967 of the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications." ...
So, a canvass or public bidding was conducted on May 5, 1967
... . The committee on award accepted the bid of the Singkier
Motor Service [owned by respondent Felipe Singson] for the
2)
WHETHER OR NOT WRITS OF EXECUTION AND
GARNISHMENT MAY BE ISSUED AGAINST THE STATE IN AN
EXPROPRIATION WHEREIN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN WILL NOT SERVE PUBLIC USE OR PURPOSE
On the third issue, the court ruled that in this case the
doctrine of state immunity cannot be applied to the NHA,
although it is public in character, it is only public in
character since it is government-owned, having a juridical
personality separate and distinct from the government, the
funds of such government-owned and controlled corporations
and non-corporate agency, although considered public in
character, are not exempt from garnishment.
Notes:
RATIO:
On the first issue, the court held that, yes the state can
be compelled and coerced by the court to continue exercise
its inherent power of eminent domain, since the NHA does not
exercise its right to appeal in the expropriation proceedings
before the court has rendered the case final and executory. In
the early case of City of Manila v. Ruymann and Metropolitan
Water District v. De Los Angeles, an expropriation proceeding
was explained.
1. The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to
be sued by private parties either by general or special law
2. If the funds belong to a public corporation or a governmentowned or controlled corporation which is clothed with a
personality of its own, separate and distinct from that of the
government, then its funds are not exempt from garnishment.
This is so because when the government enters into
commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and
is to be treated like any other corporation.
Garnishment
A judicial proceeding in which a creditor (or a potential
creditor) asks the court to order a third party who is indebted
to or is bailee for the debtor to turn over to the creditor any of
the debtors property (such as wages or bank accounts) held
by that third party.
A person can initiate a garnishment action as means of
either prejudgment seizure or post judgment collection.
In short, it only means whether the Heirs of Guivelendo
can file a case to NHA to compel the latter to give to them the
amount of the just compensation as rendered by the court.
Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Margarito
Teves, et al., G.R. No. 176579, June 28, 2011
I.
THE FACTS
This is a petition to nullify the sale of shares of stock
of Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation
(PTIC) by the government of the Republic of the Philippines,
acting through the Inter-Agency Privatization Council (IPC), to
THE ISSUE
Does the term capital in Section 11, Article XII of
the Constitution refer to the total common shares only, or to
the total outstanding capital stock (combined total of common
and non-voting preferred shares) of PLDT, a public utility?