REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES  A corollary, dictated by logic and sound sense of

VS basic concept, those public funds cannot be the

HON. GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, and co.,
G.R. NO. L-30671 Nov. 28, 1973 Fernando, J.
A certiorari and prohibition proceeding challenging the
validity of an order issued by respondent Judge
Guillermo P. Villasor, of Court of First Instance of Cebu
Branch I, declaring final and executory and a writ of
execution directed against the funds of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, stating such order and writ
against the AFP is in excess of jurisdiction and grave
abuse of discretion by the respondent Judge and
company as the government is immune from suit unless
it gives its consent (ART. XVI Sec 3)
FACTS
 On July 3, 1961, a decision was rendered in
favour of respondents P.J. Kiener Co, Ltd, Gavino
Unchuan and International Construction Corp and
against the AFP, confirming an arbitration award
of P1,712,398.40.
 On June 24, 1969, Hon. Villasor declared an order
to the Sheriffs of Rizal Province, Quezon City and
Manila to execute the said decision.
 On June 26, 1969, a Alias Writ of Execution was
issued.
 On June 28, 1969, the provincial Sheriff of Rizal
(also a respondent herein) served notices of
garnishment to several banks, (Philippine
Veterans Bank and Philippine National Bank)
against the “monies due the ARFP in the form of
deposits sufficient to cover such writ of execution
 The said funds in Veterans and PNB were public
funds duly appropriated and allocated for the
pensions of retirees, pay and allowances of
military and civil personnel and for maintenance
and operations of AFP, according to AFP
Controller.
object of a garnishment proceeding even if the
consent to be sued had been previously granted
and the state liability adjudged.
 “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 the claimant’s
action only up to the completion of proceedings
anterior to the state of execution thus government
funds and properties may not be seized upon writs
and notices in consideration of public policy
(Commissioner of Public Highways Vs. San
Diego)
 “Disbursements of public funds must be covered
by the corresponding appropriation as required by
law.” (Commissioner of Public Highways vs. San
Diego) “...is 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.... the
State, by virtue of its sovereignty, may not be sued
in its own courts except by express authorization
by the Legislature.”
 It is only through the Budgetary Commission by
the legislature that the said appropriation and
allocation for funds in response to the writ of
execution or garnishment, be settled.
Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition is GRANTED
NULLIFYING and SETTING ASIDE orders of
 JUNE 24, 1969 (order to the sheriffs)
 the decision of July 3, 1961
 alias writ of execution

ISSUE
 Whether the order, alias writ of execution and
notices of garnishment executed by the
respondents has jurisdiction and is in conformity
with the dictates of the Constitution.

HELD
 The respondent Judge, Villasor, acted in excess of
jurisdiction 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 AFP, thus the writ and
garnishment are declared null and void.
 Art XVI, Sec.3 of the 1987 Constitution states that
“The State may not be sued without its consent”,
thus giving immunity to the state, “giving protection
against inconvenience that may be caused by
private parties leading to a loss of governmental
efficiency and loss of time and energy required to
defend against law suits.”