PNB v. Court of Industrial Relations
G.R. No. L-32667
January 31, 1978
Facts:
Gabriel Manansala, the counsel for United Homesite Employees and Laborers Assoociation, was previously issued a writ of execution. What was sought to be garnished was the money of the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation. The writ of execution, however, was challenged on two grounds:
1. The appointment of Gilbert Lorenzo as authorized deputy sheriff to serve the writ of execution was contrary to law
2. The funds subject to the garnishment is public in character.
Lorenzo is the Clerk of Court. The Philippine National Bank (PNB) moved to quash the notice of garnishment, citing Section 11 of Commonwealth Act No. 105, stating “All writs and processes issued by the Court shall be served and executed free of charge by provincial or city sheriffs, or by any person authorized by this Court, in the same manner as writs and processes of Courts of First Instance.” PNB argues that it should be the sheriff of Quezon City, not the clerk of court, who has the authority to serve the garnishment.
Issues:
1. Does Lorenzo have the authority to serve the writ of execution?
2. Can the funds be levied?
Ruling:
1. Yes. Under Commonwealth Act No. 103, the Clerk of Court is the ex-officio sheriff. Thus, he/she has the authority to serve the writ of execution. Furthermore, what is important is that the judgment be executed.
2. No. The People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation had a juridical existence enabling it to sue and be sued. The State’s non-suability cannot be applied here. The organization has a personality of its own. When the government enters into a commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation. It has to be subjected to the rules of law governing private corporations.
It's a Ping Thing 