Republic vs.

Villasor (Consti1)
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 the City of Manila, the Clerk of
Court of First Instance of Cebu, P.J. Kiener Co., Ltd.,
Gavino Unchuan, and International Construction
Corporation, respondents.
November 28, 1973
Fernando, J:
Facts:
The decision that was rendered in favor of
respondents P.J. Kiener Co., Ltd, Gavino Unchuan and
International Construction Corporation was declared
final and executory by Respondent Hon. Guillermo P.
Villasor.
Pursuant to the said declaration, the corresponding
Alias Writ of Execution was issued. And for the strength
of this writ, the provincial sheriff served notices of
garnishment with several banks, specially on the
'monies due the Armed Forces of the Philippines in the
form of deposits; the Philippines Veterans Bank
received the same notice of garnishment.
The funds of the AFP on deposit with the banks are
public funds duly appropriated and allocated for the
payment of pensions of retireees, pay and allowances
of military and civillian personnel and for maintenance
and operations of AFP.
Petitioner filed a petition against Villasor for acting in
excess jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
granting the issuance of a Writ of Execution against the
properties of AFP, hence the notices and garnishments
are null and void.
Issue:
Whether or not the Writ of Execution issued by
respondent Judge Villasor is valid.
Held:
No
Ratio:
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
and 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.
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. 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 limitclaimants 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