Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Atty. PERLITA M.

SAGMIT
Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel
Clark Development Corporation
Bldg. 2122 Elpidio Quirino St., Clark Freeport Zone
Philippines
Dear Atty. Sagmit:
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 11, 2016, addressed to the Legal
Services Sector, this Commission, requesting legal opinion on whether any money claim against
Clark Development Corporation (CDC), a subsidiary corporation of Bases Conversion and
Development Authority (BCDA), should first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA)
through Petition before the said money claim may be lawfully satisfied by CDCs claimants who
are pressing the CDCs bank depositors thru Writ of Execution/Garnishment/Attachment to
satisfy their claims.
Stated differently, the main question to be resolved is whether or not the claimant must
seek the COAs approval first before the execution or garnishment may be implemented.
The foregoing is impressed with merit.
It is settled jurisprudence that upon determination of States liability, the prosecution,
enforcement or satisfaction thereof must still be pursued in accordance with the rules and
procedures laid down Presidential Decree No. 1445, otherwise known as the Government
Auditing Code of the Philippines.1 This ruling upholds the view that when the State gives its
consent to be sued by private parties, either by general or special law, it may limit the claimants
action only up to the completion proceedings anterior to the stage of execution and that the
power of Courts ends when the judgment is rendered. 2 The first is well within the scope of the

1 Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693, p701-02 (1993) citing Republic v. Villasor, 54
SCRA 84 [1973])
2 National Electrification Administration v. Morales, G.R. No. 154200, July 24, 2007

power and authority of the court. The second depends whether or not there is a corresponding
appropriation, as required by law, to satisfy the judgment of the court.3
However, funds belonging to Government Corporation (whose charter provides that they can sue
and be sued) that are deposited with a bank are not exempt from garnishment. 4 Thus, it cannot
avoid execution, but before execution may proceed against it, a claim for payment of the
judgment award must first be filed with the Commission on Audit. 5 The settlement of the
monetary claims is still subject to the primary jurisdiction of COA; as such, claimants have no
alternative except to first seek the approval of their monetary claim by COA.6
Moreover, the question interposed is not one of first impression. This Commission had the
occasion to speak of similar claims, the latest of which is embodied in COA Legal Opinion____
dated October 27, 2015, where we opined, consistent with the existing laws, rules and
jurisprudence, that the adverse final judgment rendered against the City of Puerto Princesa in a
suit to which it had consented to be sued is not immediately enforceable by execution against the
City, prior to the approval thereof by this Commission.
Hence, the execution of money claims against Clark Development Corporation must first
be filed with COA before the said claims may be satisfied by CDC.

3 Rolando Suarez, Political Law Reviewer, p. 141, 2015


4 Philippine National Bank v. Pabalan, G.R. No. L-33112, June 16, 1978
5 National Electrification Administration v. Morales, supra
6 University of the Philippines v. Hon. Dizon, G.R. No. 171182, August 23, 2012