G.R. No.

L-30671 November 28, 1973

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
HON. GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch I,
THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY, and THE SHERIFF
OF THE CITY OF MANILA, THE CLERK OF COURT, Court of First Instance of Cebu, P. J.
KIENER CO., LTD., GAVINO UNCHUAN, AND INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS:

The case was filed by the Republic of the Philippines requesting to nullify the ruling of the CFI in
Cebu ingarnishing the public funds allocated for the AFP.

A decision was rendered in Special Proceedings in favor of respondents and against the petitioner
herein, confirming the arbitration award. The respondent Judge Villasor issued an Order declaring
the said decision final andexecutory, directing the Sheriffs of Rizal Province, Quezon City and Manila
to execute the said decision. The corresponding Alia Writ of Execution was issued. On the strength
of the aforementioned Alias Writ of Execution, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal served Notices of
Garnishment with several Banks. The funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines on deposit with
Philippine Veterans Bank and PNB 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 AFP.

Petitioner, filed prohibition proceedings against respondent Judge Villasor for acting in excess of
jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the issuance of
a Writ of Execution against the properties of the AFP, hence the notices and garnishment are null
and void.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Writ of Execution issued by respondent Judge Villasor is valid.

RULING:

No. In the case, public funds would remain to be government funds and the same may only be
appropriated or disbursed pursuant to an appropriation law. Public funds are supposedly for public
use and not for satisfying money claims adjudged against the State.

Hence, 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 and its government is immune from suit unless it gives its consent.