Question: Juan, an employee of Bureau of Internal Revenue, borrowed a sum of money of ₽20,000 from

his friend Joseph with a promissory note that he is authorizing Joseph to deduct ₽20,000 from his salary
to pay his debt. On April 15 Joseph goes to the disbursing officer and present the promissory note to get
the ₽20,000 from Juan’s salary. Does Joseph’s have right to demand the payment of Juan’s debt as
salary deduction from the disbursing officer of BIR?

Issue: WON Joseph could collect against the salary of Juan from the BIR by presenting the promissory
note to the disbursing officer.

Conclusion: No. Joseph is not permitted by law to collect from Juan via salary deduction despite the
evidence of indebtedness of Juan and his consent to pay Joseph through deduction of his salary from
BIR.

Law: Applicable is Section 48 of GAA of 2018.

“Authorized Deductions. Deduction from salaries and other benefits accruing to any
government employee charged against the appropriations for Personnel Services, may
be allowed for the payment of an individual employee’s contribution or obligation due
to the following, and in the order of preference stated below:

(a) The BIR, PHILHEALTH, GSIS AND HDMF;

(b) Non-stock savings and loan association and mutual benefit association duly operating
under existing laws and cooperatives;
(c) Association or provident funds organized and managed by government employees for
their benefit and welfare;
(d) GFIs authorized by law and accredited by appropriate government regulating bodies to
engage in lending;
(e) Licensed insurance companies; and
(f) Thrift banks and rural banks accredited by the BSP.

In no case shall the foregoing deductions reduce the employee’s monthly take home
pay to an amount lower than Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000).”

Analysis: It is was held in the case of THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY vs.
Honorable PEDRO CONCEPCION (1922) that “…money in the hands of public officers, although it may be
due government employees, is not liable to the creditors of these employees in the process of
garnishment. One reason is, that the State, by virtue of its sovereignty, may not be sued in its own
courts except by express authorization by the Legislature, and to subject its officers to garnishment
would be to permit indirectly what is prohibited directly. Another reason is that moneys sought to be
garnished, as long as they remain in the hands of the disbursing office of the Government, belong to the
latter, although the defendant in garnishment may be entitled to a specific portion thereof. And still
another reason which covers both of the foregoing is that every consideration of public policy forbids
it.”

The case above, however, is not exactly applicable in the given scenario as the demand of Joseph is
based on a promissory note, not on a garnishment order issued by a court. Still, it would serve as a take-
off point for the given scenario.
Given the earlier quoted provision of Section 48 of GAA 2018, salary deduction of government
employees is clearly permitted, albeit subject to clearly set parameters. Why was it allowed in the first
place when it was held in case of The Director that money “as long as they remain in the hands of the
disbursing office of the Government, belongs to the latter…”? Has the doctrine in this case been
abandoned? I think there is no conflict between this case and the present practice of salary deductions
when we look at it from the point of view of “consent.” In the case of The Director, there was no
consent, express or implied on the part of the government to subject the salary of an employee to
garnishment. At present, we could clearly see the express consent on the part of the government
allowing deductions to salary of government employee in Sec. 48 of GAA 2018.

In the given scenario, consent on the part of Juan for Joseph to collect a specific sum of money from BIR
was staring right in front of us. Without the consent on the part of the employee, a salary cannot be
subject of any deductions, unless provided for by law as in the case of income tax, withheld for the
benefit of BIR. The consent of Juan, however, is not sufficient for Joseph to demand his right to collect.
The government on its part must consent since the doctrine that “money, as long as they remain in the
hands of the disbursing office of the Government, belongs to the latter” still holds. Since the
government consented is wanting in the given scenario (not one of those allowed in Sect. 48 of GAA
2018), the demand of Joseph cannot be allowed.