Scribd
Upload
40 views1 page

Case Digest GR 30671

The Supreme Court ruled the writ of execution issued against the Armed Forces of the Philippines was invalid. Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the state and its entities cannot be sued without consent. Even if the state's liability has been adjudged, public funds are exempt from garnishment proceedings. Allowing the garnishment of state funds would disrupt the state's important functions and divert public funds from their intended purposes as appropriated by law.

Uploaded by

Richard Lumasag
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
40 views1 page

Case Digest GR 30671

The Supreme Court ruled the writ of execution issued against the Armed Forces of the Philippines was invalid. Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the state and its entities cannot be sued without consent. Even if the state's liability has been adjudged, public funds are exempt from garnishment proceedings. Allowing the garnishment of state funds would disrupt the state's important functions and divert public funds from their intended purposes as appropriated by law.

Uploaded by

Richard Lumasag
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CASE DIGEST : REPUBLIC vs VILLASOR

G.R. No. L-30671 November 28, 1973  REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,  vs. HON.
GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch I, THE
PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, and THE SHERIFF OF
THE CITY OF MANILA, THE CLERK OF COURT, Court of First Instance of Cebu, P. J. KIENER
CO., LTD., GAVINO UNCHUAN, AND INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
respondents.

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 InternationalConstruction Corporation and
against petitioner confirming the arbitration award in theamount of P1,712,396.40.The award is for
the satisfactionof a judgment against thePhlippine Government.On June 24, 1969, respondent
Honorable Guillermo Villasor issued an Orderdeclaring thedecision final and executory.Villasor
directed the Sheriffs of 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 limitclaimant’s 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

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy