Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor foun...
Republic vs. Villasor
GR No. L-30671, November 28 1973, 54 SCRA 84
FACTS:
On July 3, 1961, 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 the petitioner herein, confirming the arbitration award subject of Special Proceedings.
On June 24, 1969, respondent Honorable Guillermo P. Villasor, issued an Order declaring the aforestated decision of July 3, 1961 final and executory, directing the Sheriffs of Rizal Province, Quezon City [as well as] Manila to execute the said decision.
Republic vs. Villasor
Pursuant to the said Order, the corresponding Alias Writ of Execution was issued.
On the strength of the afore-mentioned Alias Writ of Execution, the respondent Provincial Sheriff of Rizal served notices of garnishment with several Banks, specially on the `monies due the Armed Forces of the Philippines in the form of deposits, sufficient to cover the amount mentioned in the said Writ of Execution’; the Philippine Veterans Bank received the same notice of garnishment.
Read: Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
Read: Republic of the Philippines vs. Feliciano
The funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines on deposit with the Banks, particularly, with the Philippine Veterans Bank and the Philippine National Bank [or] their branches 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 Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Republic vs. Villasor
Petitioner then alleged that respondent Judge, Honorable Guillermo P. Villasor, acted in excess of jurisdiction [or] with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the issuance of an alias writ of execution against the properties of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, hence, the Alias Writ of Execution and notices of garnishment issued pursuant thereto are null and void."
In the answer filed by respondents, the facts set forth were admitted with the only qualification being that the total award was in the amount of P2,372,331.40.
ISSUE:
Republic vs. Villasor
Whether or not the notices of garnishment are null and void.
HELD:
The Republic of the Philippines did right in filing this certiorari and prohibition proceeding.
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. It is readily understandable why it must be so.
Republic vs. Villasor
In the classic formulation of Holmes:
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.
Sociological jurisprudence supplies an answer not dissimilar.
Read: Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands
Read: Merritt vs. Government of the Philippine Islands
Republic vs. Villasor
This fundamental postulate underlying the 1935 Constitution is now made explicit in the revised charter.
It is therein expressly provided:
The State may not be sued without its consent.
A corollary, both dictated by logic and sound sense from such 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.
Republic vs. Villasor