Republic v Villasor

G.R. No. L-3067, 1 November 28, 1973

FACTS:

On July 7, 1969, a decision was rendered in Special Proceedings No. 2156-R in favor 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 Philippine 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.

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 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.