Department of Agriculture v. NLRC
G.R. No. 104269
November 11, 1993
Facts:
The Department of Agriculture (DA) and Sultan Security Agency entered into a contract on April 1, 1989 for security services to be provided by the agency. On September 13, 1990, several guards of the agency field a complaint for underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th-mmonth pay, uniform allowances,etc., against the DA and the security agency.
The Executive Labor Arbiter found the DA and the agency jointly and severally liable for the payment of the money claims amounting to Php266,483.91. The decision became final and executory since neither of the two appealed.
On July 18, 1991, the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution commanding the city sheriff to enforce the judgment against the property of the two respondents. The sheriff levied the DA;’s motor vehicles, including a unit of Toyota Hi-Ace, a Toyota mini cruiser, and a Toyota Crown. The DA alleged that the court could not levy upon its properties since it is a government agency and invoked the State immunity against suit. In answer, the petitioners contend that the DA gave its consent to be sued when it entered into a service contract with Sultan Security Agency.
Issues:
Can the court validly levy upon the DA’s properties?
Ruling:
No. When the State gives its consent to be sued, it does not mean that it consents to an unrestrained execution against it. All it does when it gives its consent to be sued is to allow the other party to prove that the State has a liability. The power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered. Government funds may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments. This is based on considerations of public policy.
It's a Ping Thing 