74. CURATA VS.

PPA, 590 SCRA 215 (2009)

TOPIC: STATE IMMUNITY (RESULTING LIABILITY)
FACTS: Executive Order No. (EO) 385 Series of 1989, and EO 431 Series of 1990, delineated
the Batangas Port Zone BPZ and placed it under the PPA for administrative jurisdiction of
its proper zoning, planning, development, and utilization. Pursuant thereto, the PPA
instituted on October 14, 1999 a Complaint for expropriation of 185 lots before the RTC of
Batangas City. Owned by some 231 individuals or entities, the 185 lots, with a total area of
about 1,298,340 square meters, were intended for the development of Phase II of the BPZ.
On July 10, 2000, the RTC issued the first compensation order, which pegged the just
compensation at PhP 5,500 per square meter in favor of the Dimayacyac Group.Alleging that
almost all of the group members were of advanced age, the trial court, upon motion, issued the
July 24, 2000 Order that granted the execution pending appeal. On July 31, 2000, another order
ensued, directing the issuance of the writ of execution. On August 2 and 3, 2000, respondent
Sheriff Rolando D. Quino served Notices of Garnishment on LBP.
On August 10, 2000, PPA filed a Notice of Appeal with Motion for Extension of Time to
File Record on Appeal and Pay Appeal Fee. Within the period of extension requested, PPA filed
its Record on Appeal on August 25, 2000. On the same day, August 25, the RTC issued an
Order denying PPAs Notice of Appeal from the July 10, 2000 Order (First Compensation Order)
on the ground of non-payment of appeal fee. In its August 28, 2000 Order, the RTC denied
PPAs Record on Appeal. On September 18, 2000, the RTC denied PPAs Motion for
Reconsideration of the August 25, 2000 RTC order.
Thus, in CA-G.R. SP No. 60314, PPA challenged the execution pending appeal of the
July 24, 2000 Order, the July 31, 2000 Order which issued the writ of execution and the August
2 and 3, 2000 Notices of Garnishment. In its supplemental petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 60314,
PPA assailed the August 25, 2000 Order which denied PPAs motion for extension of time to file
Record on Appeal and pay the appeal fee, the August 28, 2000 Order which denied the PPAs
record on appeal and the September 18, 2000 Order which denied PPAs motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE: W/N government funds may be seized to satisfy the writ of execution.
HELD: NO. 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 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. PPAs monies, facilities and
assets are government properties. Ergo, they are exempt from execution whether by virtue of a
final judgment or pending appeal.