You are on page 1of 1

PNB V PABALAN CASE DIGEST:

FACTS: This case essentially is a certiorari case filed by the Philippine National Bank
against Judge Pabalan. Judge Pabalan ordered a Writ of Execution against Philippine
Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) on December 17, 1970. With the said writ,
there was also a notice of garnishment for the full amount of P12,724.66. PNB is the
bank of the PVTA hence the notice of garnishment was issued for them. The court
ordered that the funds of PVTA that are with PNB are to be garnished and delivered
to the party that the PVTA owes immediately to satisfy the Writ of Execution.
Because of this Writ and Notice of Garnishment, we have this case we are
discussing.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the funds of PNB can be garnished or not
2. Whether PNB can invoke the Concept of State Immunity
ARGUMENTS:
PNB

Our funds are public in nature hence it cannot be garnished based on Sec. 3,
Art XVI of the Constitution
The state cannot be sued. We are a government bank therefore we cannot be
sued.

Supreme Court

Funds of Public Corporations could be properly made the object of a notice of


garnishment.
Jurisprudence of NASSCO V. Court of Industrial Relations Chief Justice
Concepcion said that NASSCO has a personality of its own distinct and
separate from the Government just like the case of PNB now.
Jurisprudence of Manila Hotel Employee Association V. Manila Hotel when
the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign
capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation.
Jurisprudence of Bank of United States V. Planters Bank by engaging in a
particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation, the government
divests itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character, so as to render the
corporation subject to rules of law governing private corporations

DECISION:
Case is dismissed.