Macalinao, Romielyn P.

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: Non-Suability of the State
Title: REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs VILLASOR
Reference: 55 SCRA 83

FACTS

On July 7, 1969, a decision was rendered in Special

Proceedings No. 2156-R infavor of respondents P.J. Kiener Co., Ltd.,
Gavino Unchuan, and International Construction Corporation and
against petitioner confirming the arbitration award in the amount of
P1,712,396.40. The award is for the satisfaction of a judgment against
the Phlippine Government.

On June 24, 1969, respondent Honorable Guillermo Villasor

issued an Order declaring the decision final and executory. Villasor
directed the Sheriffs of Rizal Province, Quezon City as well as Manila to
execute said decision. The Provincial Sheriff of Rizal served Notices of
Garnishment with several Banks, specially on Philippine Veterans Bank
and PNB.

The funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines on deposit

with Philippine Veterans Bank and PNB 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.

Petitioner, on certiorari, filed prohibition proceedings against

respondent Judge Villasor for acting in excess of jurisdiction with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the
issuance of a Writ of Execution against the properties of the AFP,
hence the notices and garnishment are null and void.

ISSUES

Whether or not the Writ of Execution issued by Judge Villasor is

valid?

RULINGS

No, it cant be considered valid.

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. The State may not be sued without its
consent.

In the case at bar, what was done by respondent Judge is not

in conformity with the dictates of the Constitution.

A corollary, both dictated by logic and sound sense from a basic

concept is that 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
claimants 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 the 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.