Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17874 August 31, 1963
NATIONAL SHIPYARDS & STEEL CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, and JOSE ABIDAY, ET AL., respondents.
The Government Corporate Counsel for petitioner.
Onofre P. Guevara for respondents.
FACTS:
1. [April 15, 1957] 39 laborers filed a petition to sentence NASSCO (a public corporation) to pay them,
as their employer, additional compensation for services rendered at night, on Sundays and legal
holidays.
2. [Oct. 25, 1957] 29 additional workers filed a supplemental petition with the same purpose
3. [Nov. 27 , 1957] CIR issued an order to NASSCO to pay the laborers their requested compensation
equivalent to 25% of their regular compensation.
4. Despite the opposition of the NASSCO, the Sheriff of Manila served a notice of garnishment upon
several banks
5. [March 19, 1958] the PNB forwarded to the Sheriff the sum of P38, 069.54, which was taken from
the current and savings account of the NASSCO.
6. Sheriff deposited with the clerk of court the balance (minus the Sheriff fee) and was turned over on
March 31, 1958 to the laborer's counsel for proper distribution.
7. [April 30, 1958] Chief Examiner of the CIR submitted a 2nd partial report showing that an
aggregated amount of P147,274 was due to the 52 petitioning laborers.
8. Again, despite the NASSCO's objection, CIR approved the report and directed the issuance of the
writ of execution for the 2nd report due.
9. Notices of garnishments were served again on several banks and PNB sent the P148,027.37 (with
Sheriff's fee) to the Sheriff, who after deducting his fee, turned over the balance of P147,274 to
Atty. Guevara.
10. NASSCO moved to stay the enforcement of said writ of execution, upon the ground that the funds
sought to be levied upon pursuant thereto were public funds
a. under the provisions of Republic Act No. 1000 and Republic Act No. 1396 with funds as
"Government Bonds"
11. However, the counsel for the laborers stated that the laborers had already received the money. For
this reason, NASSCO filed an urgent petition for the return of the money (P147,278)
12. Laborers filed a motion for reconsideration and was granted, reversing the petition for the return of
money.

ISSUE: W/N NASSCO's funds are public funds which are exempted from attachment, exection or seizure,
as stated in Section 1 of RA No. 1000

RULING: No

RATIO:

It should be noted that the foregoing provision exempts from "taxation", as well as from "attachment,
execution or seizure" merely "the bonds issued under this Act," not the proceeds of said bonds.

As a GOCC, "NASSCO has a personality of its own, distinct separate from that of the Government." This
means that the funds of NASSCO can not be considered as public funds of the government. Pursuant to
Section 2 of EO No. 356., NASSCO was established with "all the powers of a corporation under the
Corporation Law." It may then sue and be sued and may be subjected to court processes just like any
other corporation (Section 13, Act No. 1459)