recent j uri sprudence

136
ust law law re vi e w, vol lvi i , no. 1, november 2012
Moreover, as the function of the Ombudsman goes into the determination
of the existence of probable cause and the adjudication of the merits of a criminal
accusation, the investigative authority of the IAD-ODESLA is limited to that
of a fact-fnding investigator whose determinations and recommendations remain
so until acted upon by the President. As such, it commits no usurpation of the
Ombudsmans constitutional duties.
Executive Order No. 13 does not violate Pichays right to due process and
the equal protection of the laws
Pichays right to due process was not violated when the IAD-ODESLA
took cognizance of the administrative complaint against him. In administrative
proceedings, the fling of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the
person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum
requirements of due process, which simply means having the opportunity to
explain ones side. Hence, as long as Pichay was given the opportunity to explain
his side and present evidence, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily
complied with because what the law abhors is an absolute lack of opportunity to
be heard.
Also, Pichay is a presidential appointee occupying the high-level position of
Chairman of the LWUA. Necessarily, he comes under the disciplinary jurisdiction
of the President, who is well within his right to order an investigation into matters
that require his informed decision. There are substantial distinctions that set
apart presidential appointees occupying upper-level positions in government
from non-presidential appointees and those that occupy the lower positions in
government.
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN DIZON
G.R. No. 171182, 23 August 2012, FIRST DIVISION (Bersamin, J.)
The funds of the UP are government funds that are public of character which could
not be validly made the subject of a writ of execution or garnishment.
The University of the Philippines (UP) entered into a General
Construction Agreement with respondent Stern Builders Corporation (Stern
Builders) for the construction of the extension building and the renovation of
poli ti cal law
137
ust law law re vi e w, vol lvi i , no. 1, november 2012
the College of Arts and Sciences Building in the campus of the University of the
Philippines in Los Baos (UPLB). In the course of the implementation of the
contract, Stern Builders submitted three progress billings corresponding to the
work accomplished, but the UP paid only two of the billings. The third billing
was not paid due to its disallowance by the Commission on Audit (COA). Despite
the lifting of the disallowance, the UP failed to pay the billing, prompting Stern
Builders to sue the UP and offcials to collect the unpaid billing and to recover
various damages.
Meanwhile, the sheriff served notices of garnishment on the UPs
depository banks, namely: Land Bank of the Philippines (Buendia Branch) and
the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Commonwealth Branch. The
UP assailed said garnishment of funds. Stern Builders and dela Cruz, meanwhile,
again sought the release of the garnished funds.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the funds of UP are subject to garnishment
HELD:
Despite its establishment as a body corporate, the UP remains to be a
chartered institution performing a legitimate government function. The UP
is a government instrumentality, performing the States constitutional mandate
of promoting quality and accessible education. As a government instrumentality,
the UP administers special funds sourced from the fees and income enumerated
under Act No. 1870 and Section 1 of Executive Order No. 714, and from the
yearly appropriations, to achieve the purposes laid down by Section 2 of Act 1870,
as expanded in Republic Act No. 9500. All the funds going into the possession
of the UP, including any interest accruing from the deposit of such funds in any
banking institution, constitute a special trust fund, the disbursement of which
should always be aligned with the UPs mission and purpose, and should always
be subject to auditing by the COA.
The funds of the UP are government funds that are public in character.
They include the income accruing from the use of real property ceded to the UP
that may be spent only for the attainment of its institutional objectives. Hence,
the funds subject of this action could not be validly made the subject of writ of
execution or garnishment. The adverse judgment rendered against the UP in a suit
to which it had impliedly consented was not immediately enforceable by execution
against the UP, because suability of the State did not necessarily mean its liability.