G.R. No.

9959
35 PH 728, 751-753
December 13, 1916
Petitioner: Government of the Philippine Islands, represented by Executive
Treasurer
Respondent: El Monte de Piedad Y Caja de Ajorras de Manila
FACTS: On June 3, 1863, a devastating earthquake in the Philippines took place.
The Spanish dominions provided $400,000 aid as received by the National Treasury
as relief of the victims of the earthquake. The government used the money as such
but $80,000 was left untouched and was thus invested to Monte de Piedad bank,
which was in turn invested as jewelries, equivalent to the same amount.
In June 1983, the Department of Finance called upon the same bank to return the
$80,000 deposited from before. The Monte de Piedad declined to comply with this
order on the ground that the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands and not the
Department of Finance had the right to order the reimbursement because the
Philippine government is not the affected party. On account of various petitions of
the persons, the Philippine Islands brought a suit against Monte de Piedad for a
recovery of the $80,000 together with interest, for the benefit of those persons and
their heirs. Respondent refuse to provide the money, hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine government is authorized to file a
reimbursement of the money of the people deposited in respondent bank.
HELD: The Court held that the Philippine government is competent to file a
complaint/reimbursement against respondent bank in accordance to the Doctrine
of Parens Patriae. The government is the sole protector of the rights of the people
thus, it holds an inherent supreme power to enforce laws which promote public
interest. The government has the right to "take back" the money intended for
people.

The government has the right to enforce all charities of public nature, by

virtue of its general superintending authority over the public interests, where no
other person is entrusted with it.

Appellate court decision was affirmed. Petition was thereby GRANTED. The Court
ordered that respondent bank return the amount to the rightful heirs with interest in
gold or coin in Philippine peso.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. GREGORIO

PERFECTO
Facts:
On September 7, 1920, Mr. Gregorio Perfecto published an article in the
newspaper La Nacion regarding the disappearance of certain documents in the
Office of Fernando M. Guerrero, the Secretary of the Philippine Senate. The article of
Mr. Perfecto suggested that the difficulty in finding the perpetrators was due to an
official concealment by the Senate since the missing documents constituted the
records of testimony given by witnesses in the investigation of oil companies. This
resulted to a case being filed against Mr. Perfecto for violation of Article 256 of the
Penal Code. He was found guilty by the Municipal Trial Court and again in the Court
of First Instance of Manila. Mr. Perfecto filed an appeal in the Supreme Court to
dismiss the case on the ground that Article 256 was not in force anymore.
Issue:
Will a law be abrogated by the change of Spanish to American Sovereignty over the
Philippines?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was enacted by
the Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were representative of the
King. With the change of sovereignty, a new government, and a new theory of
government, was set up in the Philippines. It was no sense a continuation of the old
laws. No longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority of such
exalted position that the citizen must speak of him only in bated breath.
The crime of lese majeste disappeared in the Philippines with the ratification of the
Treaty of Paris. Ministers of the Crown have no place under the American flag.
Judgement is REVERED and the defendant and appellant ACQUITTED.

REPUBLIC VS. VILLASOR,

ET AL.
REPUBLIC VS. VILLASOR, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-30671 November 28, 1973
Facts: On July 7, 1969, a decision was rendered
n Special Proceedings No. 2156-R infavor of
respondents P.J. Kiener Co., Ltd., Gavino
Unchuan, and InternationalConstruction
Corporation and against petitioner confirming the
arbitration award in theamount of
P1,712,396.40.The award is for the satisfactionof a
j
udgment against thePhlippine Government.On
June 24, 1969, respondent Honorable Guillermo
Villasor issued an Orderdeclaring thedecision final and executory.Villasor directed the Sheriffs of
i

RizalProvince, Quezon City as well as Manilato execute said decision.The Provincial Sheriffof Rizal
served Notices of Garnishment with several Banks,specially on PhilippineVeterans Bank and PNB.The
funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines on deposit with PhilippineVeterans Bank andPNB are public
funds duly appropriated and allocated for thepayment of pensions of retirees, pay andallowances of
military and civilian personneland for maintenance and operations of the AFP.Petitioner, on certiorari, filed
prohibition proceedings against respondent JudgeVillasor for acting in excess of jurisdiction with grave
abuse of discretion amounting tolack of jurisdiction in grantingthe issuance of a Writ of Execution against
the propertiesof the AFP, hence the notices and garnishment arenull and void.
Issue: Is the Writ of Execution issued by Judge Villasor valid?
Held: What was done by respondent Judge is not in conformity with the dictates of theConstitution.It isa
fundamental postulate of constitutionalism flowing from the juristicconcept of sovereignty that the stateas
well as its government is immune from suitunless it gives its consent.A sovereign is exempt from suit,not
because of any formalconception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that therecan
beno legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.The State may not
be sued without its consent. A corollary, both dictated by logicand soundsense from a basic concept is
that public funds cannot be the object of agarnishment proceeding even if theconsent to be sued had
been previously granted andthe state liability adjudged.The universal rule that wherethe State gives its
consent tobe sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limitclaimants actiononly up
to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution and thatthepower of the Courts ends
when the judgment is rendered, since the government fundsand properties maynot be seized under writs
of execution or garnishment to satisfy suchjudgments, is based on obviousconsiderations of public
policy.Disbursements of publicfunds must be covered by the correspondingappropriation as required by
law.Thefunctions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowedto be paralyzedor disrupted
by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects,asappropriated by law