Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

REPUBLIC VS. VILLASOR, ET AL. G.R. No.

L-30671 November 28, 1973 Facts: On July 7, 1969, a decision was rendered in Special Proceedings No. 2 1 5 6 - R i n f a v o r o f 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 Manilato 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. 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 the Constitution. 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. A corollar y, both dictated by logic and sound sense from a basic concept is that public funds cannot be the object of agarnishment 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 publicfunds 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.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi