Republic of the Philippines vs. Villaser Digested

Republic of the Philippines vs. Villaser 54 SCRA 83

WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE CAN BE SUED WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, EXCEPTIONS;

FACTS:

On July 3, 1971, a decision was rendered in Special Proceedings in favor of respondents PJ Kiener Co. Ltd., Gavino Unchuan, and International Construction Corp., and against the petitioner herein, confirming the arbitration award in the amount of P 1,712,396.40, subject of Special Proceedings.

On June 24, 1969, respondent Hon. Guillermo P. Villasor issued an Order declaring the aforestated decision final and executory, directing the Sheriffs of Rizal Province, Quezon City as well as Manila to execute the decision. The corresponding Alia Writ of Execution was issued. On the strength of the aforementioned Alias Writ of Execution, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal served notices of garnishment with several banks specially on the monies due to the AFP in the form of deposits sufficient to cover the amount mentioned in the said Writ.

The deposits of the banks are public funds duly appropriated and allocated for the payment of pensions of retirees, pay and allowances of military and civilian personnel and for maintenance and operations of the AFP.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the state can be sued without its consent.

RULING:

It is a fundamental postulate of constitutionalism flowing from the juristic concept of sovereignty that the state as well as 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. A continued adherence to the doctrine of non-suablitity is not to be deplored for as against the inconvenience that may cause private parties, the loss of government efficiency and the obstacle to the performance of its multifarious functions are far greater is such a fundamental principle were abandoned and the availability of judicial remedy were not thus restricted.

The State may not be sued without its consent. Public funds cannot be the object of a garnishment proceeding even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and the state liability adjudged. The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimant’s action only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by the law.

Money in the hands of public officers, although it may be due government employees, is not liable to the creditors of these employees in the process of garnishment. One reason is, the State, by virtue of its sovereignty, may not be sued in its own courts except by express authorization by the Legislature, and to  subject its officers to garnishment would be to permit indirectly what is prohibited directly. Another reason is that money’s sought to be garnished, as long as they remain in the hands of the disbursing officer of the Government, belong to the latter, although the defendant in garnishment may be entitled to a specific portion thereof. And still another reason which covers both of the foregoing is that every consideration of public policy forbids it.

The Supreme Court granted the writs of certiorari and prohibition, while nullifying and setting aside both the order declaring the decision s executor as well as the alia writ of execution issued.

It was ruled that public funds cannot be the object of garnishment proceedings even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and even if the State liability had been adjudged. The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimant's action only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.