
IMMUNITY OF STATE
Category: Constitutional Law
IMMUNITY OF STATE
Q — A judgment was rendered against the National Electrification Administration to settle the claims of some employees to extend to them the benefits and allowances to which they are entitled to. Upon its becoming final and executory, a motion for execution was filed which was granted. A writ of execution was issued and thereafter, there was garnishment of funds of the NEA to the extent of P16, 581,429.00. There was a motion to quash the writ which was denied, but ordered the suspension of its implementation. Later on, the RTC denied the Motion for an Order to Implement the Writ of Execution. The CA upon petition for certiorari reversed the order ruling that it is subject to court processes like levy or garnishment. Is the ruling correct? Why?
ANS: No. Without question, NEA is a GOCC, a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government, with capacity to sue, and be sued. (PD 269, Sec. 4). As such, it cannot evade execution; its funds may be garnished or levied upon in satisfaction of a judgment rendered against it. However, before execution may proceed against it, a claim for payment of the judgment award must first be filed with the COA. (Parreño v. COA, G.R. No. 162224, June 7, 2007).
Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Section 26 of P.D. No. 1445, it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle “all debts and claims of any sort” due from or owing the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. With respect to money claims arising from the implementation of R.A. No. 6758, their allowance or disallowance is for COA to decide, subject only to the remedy of appeal by petition for certiorari to the Court.
The rule is that, the funds of NEA cannot be proceeded upon pursuant to the decision because the decision sought to be satisfied is not a judgment for a specific sum of money susceptible of execution by garnishment; it is a special judgment requiring petitioner to settle the claims of respondents in accordance with existing regulations of the COA. (Rule 39, Sec. 9(c), Rules of Court; NEA v. Morales, G.R. No. 154200, July 24, 2007).
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
Popular in BATASnatin:
- Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORY - - 18473 Hits
- The Powers Of The President Of The Philippines - - 6945 Hits
- 1987, 1973, 1935 Philippines Constitution Compared/ Comparison Matrix - - 6541 Hits
- NPC v. Ibrahim, et al., G.R. No. 168732, June 29, 2007- Eminent Domain - - 5691 Hits
- Fundamental Powers of the State - - 5473 Hits
IMMUNITY OF STATE
Category: Constitutional Law
IMMUNITY OF STATE
Q — A judgment was rendered against the National Electrification Administration to settle the claims of some employees to extend to them the benefits and allowances to which they are entitled to. Upon its becoming final and executory, a motion for execution was filed which was granted. A writ of execution was issued and thereafter, there was garnishment of funds of the NEA to the extent of P16, 581,429.00. There was a motion to quash the writ which was denied, but ordered the suspension of its implementation. Later on, the RTC denied the Motion for an Order to Implement the Writ of Execution. The CA upon petition for certiorari reversed the order ruling that it is subject to court processes like levy or garnishment. Is the ruling correct? Why?
ANS: No. Without question, NEA is a GOCC, a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government, with capacity to sue, and be sued. (PD 269, Sec. 4). As such, it cannot evade execution; its funds may be garnished or levied upon in satisfaction of a judgment rendered against it. However, before execution may proceed against it, a claim for payment of the judgment award must first be filed with the COA. (Parreño v. COA, G.R. No. 162224, June 7, 2007).
Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Section 26 of P.D. No. 1445, it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle “all debts and claims of any sort” due from or owing the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. With respect to money claims arising from the implementation of R.A. No. 6758, their allowance or disallowance is for COA to decide, subject only to the remedy of appeal by petition for certiorari to the Court.
The rule is that, the funds of NEA cannot be proceeded upon pursuant to the decision because the decision sought to be satisfied is not a judgment for a specific sum of money susceptible of execution by garnishment; it is a special judgment requiring petitioner to settle the claims of respondents in accordance with existing regulations of the COA. (Rule 39, Sec. 9(c), Rules of Court; NEA v. Morales, G.R. No. 154200, July 24, 2007).
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
Popular in BATASnatin:
- Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORY - - 18473 Hits
- The Powers Of The President Of The Philippines - - 6945 Hits
- 1987, 1973, 1935 Philippines Constitution Compared/ Comparison Matrix - - 6541 Hits
- NPC v. Ibrahim, et al., G.R. No. 168732, June 29, 2007- Eminent Domain - - 5691 Hits
- Fundamental Powers of the State - - 5473 Hits
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 1 week ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 4 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 4 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
SUGGESTED ANSWERS …
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...
Read moreOral Defamation l S…
Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander A. Factor...
Read moreArticle I – THE NAT…
Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...
Read moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
BICERRA V. TENEZZA …
BICERRA V. TENEZZA 6 SCRA 648 FACTS: Bicerras were the owners of a house built on a lot owned by them and situated in the municipality of Lagangilang. Tenezza forcibly demolished the house, asserting that they are the rightfu...
Read moreFar East Bank &…
What is the liability of a bank paying a certificate of deposit payable to bearer without requiring its surrender? The bank remains liable to the holder if it paid the certificate of deposit payable to bearer without requiring its surrender (Far ...
Read moreLand Registration C…
Land Registration Circular No. 35COMPLIANCE WITH JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS IS MANDATORY> The court doesn’t acquire jurisdiction to hear the petition> It is not enough that there is publication in the Official Gazette only for there is a posting req...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
Right to Strike
SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...
Read morePeople vs. Tolentin…
G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...
Read morePerfection Of A Con…
In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...
Read more

