The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) filed a complaint for expropriation of 185 lots owned by 231 individuals and entities to develop Phase II of the Batangas Port Zone. The regional trial court issued a compensation order and granted execution pending appeal. The sheriff then served notices of garnishment on the Land Bank of the Philippines. PPA appealed but its appeal was denied for failure to pay fees. PPA challenged the execution pending appeal in the Court of Appeals. The issue was whether government funds could be seized to satisfy the writ of execution. The Supreme Court held that no, government funds and properties are exempt from execution or garnishment to satisfy judgments, as disbursement of public funds must follow appropriations
G.R. No. 209324, December 09, 2015 Republic of The Philippines, Represented by The Bureau of Customs, Petitioner, V. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, Respondent
The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) filed a complaint for expropriation of 185 lots owned by 231 individuals and entities to develop Phase II of the Batangas Port Zone. The regional trial court issued a compensation order and granted execution pending appeal. The sheriff then served notices of garnishment on the Land Bank of the Philippines. PPA appealed but its appeal was denied for failure to pay fees. PPA challenged the execution pending appeal in the Court of Appeals. The issue was whether government funds could be seized to satisfy the writ of execution. The Supreme Court held that no, government funds and properties are exempt from execution or garnishment to satisfy judgments, as disbursement of public funds must follow appropriations
The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) filed a complaint for expropriation of 185 lots owned by 231 individuals and entities to develop Phase II of the Batangas Port Zone. The regional trial court issued a compensation order and granted execution pending appeal. The sheriff then served notices of garnishment on the Land Bank of the Philippines. PPA appealed but its appeal was denied for failure to pay fees. PPA challenged the execution pending appeal in the Court of Appeals. The issue was whether government funds could be seized to satisfy the writ of execution. The Supreme Court held that no, government funds and properties are exempt from execution or garnishment to satisfy judgments, as disbursement of public funds must follow appropriations
The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) filed a complaint for expropriation of 185 lots owned by 231 individuals and entities to develop Phase II of the Batangas Port Zone. The regional trial court issued a compensation order and granted execution pending appeal. The sheriff then served notices of garnishment on the Land Bank of the Philippines. PPA appealed but its appeal was denied for failure to pay fees. PPA challenged the execution pending appeal in the Court of Appeals. The issue was whether government funds could be seized to satisfy the writ of execution. The Supreme Court held that no, government funds and properties are exempt from execution or garnishment to satisfy judgments, as disbursement of public funds must follow appropriations
TOPIC: STATE IMMUNITY (RESULTING LIABILITY) FACTS: Executive Order No. (EO) 385 Series of 1989, and EO 431 Series of 1990, delineated the Batangas Port Zone BPZ and placed it under the PPA for administrative jurisdiction of its proper zoning, planning, development, and utilization. Pursuant thereto, the PPA instituted on October 14, 1999 a Complaint for expropriation of 185 lots before the RTC of Batangas City. Owned by some 231 individuals or entities, the 185 lots, with a total area of about 1,298,340 square meters, were intended for the development of Phase II of the BPZ. On July 10, 2000, the RTC issued the first compensation order, which pegged the just compensation at PhP 5,500 per square meter in favor of the Dimayacyac Group.Alleging that almost all of the group members were of advanced age, the trial court, upon motion, issued the July 24, 2000 Order that granted the execution pending appeal. On July 31, 2000, another order ensued, directing the issuance of the writ of execution. On August 2 and 3, 2000, respondent Sheriff Rolando D. Quino served Notices of Garnishment on LBP. On August 10, 2000, PPA filed a Notice of Appeal with Motion for Extension of Time to File Record on Appeal and Pay Appeal Fee. Within the period of extension requested, PPA filed its Record on Appeal on August 25, 2000. On the same day, August 25, the RTC issued an Order denying PPAs Notice of Appeal from the July 10, 2000 Order (First Compensation Order) on the ground of non-payment of appeal fee. In its August 28, 2000 Order, the RTC denied PPAs Record on Appeal. On September 18, 2000, the RTC denied PPAs Motion for Reconsideration of the August 25, 2000 RTC order. Thus, in CA-G.R. SP No. 60314, PPA challenged the execution pending appeal of the July 24, 2000 Order, the July 31, 2000 Order which issued the writ of execution and the August 2 and 3, 2000 Notices of Garnishment. In its supplemental petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 60314, PPA assailed the August 25, 2000 Order which denied PPAs motion for extension of time to file Record on Appeal and pay the appeal fee, the August 28, 2000 Order which denied the PPAs record on appeal and the September 18, 2000 Order which denied PPAs motion for reconsideration. ISSUE: W/N government funds may be seized to satisfy the writ of execution. HELD: NO. 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 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. PPAs monies, facilities and assets are government properties. Ergo, they are exempt from execution whether by virtue of a final judgment or pending appeal.
G.R. No. 209324, December 09, 2015 Republic of The Philippines, Represented by The Bureau of Customs, Petitioner, V. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, Respondent