# 145 By: Tangonan

Case Name: City of Caloocan vs. Allarde Topic: Consent to Execution

GR No. 107271
Date: 10 September 2003
FACTS:
In 1972, Mayor Samson of Caloocan abolished the position of Assistant City Administrator and 17 other positions via
Ordinance No. 1749. The affected EEs assailed the legality of the abolition.
In 1973, the CFI declared abolition illegal and ordered the reinstatement of all the dismissed employees and the payment
of their back-wages and other emoluments.
The City Government appealed the decision, but such was dismissed. In 1986, the City paid Santiago Php 75k as partial
payment of her backwages. The others were paid in full.
In 1987 the City appropriated funds for her unpaid back salaries, but the City refused to release the money to Santiago.
The City of Caloocan argued that Santiago was not entitled to back wages.
In 1992, Sheriff Castillo levied and sold at public auction one of the motor vehicles of the City Government for Php
100k. The amount was given to Santiago. The City Government questioned the validity of the motor vehicle; properties
of the municipality were exempt from execution.
Judge Allarde denied the motion and directed the sheriff to levy and schedule at public auction 3 more vehicles.
In 1993, the City Council of Caloocan passed Ordinance No. 0134 which included the amount of Php 439k claimed by
Santiago as back-wages, plus interest. Judge Allarde issued an order to the City Treasurer to release the check, but the
City Treasurer failed to do so because the Mayor refused to sign the check.
Judge Allarde later ordered the Sheriff to immediately garnish the funds of the City Government of Caloocan
corresponding to the claim of Santiago. Notice of garnishment was forwarded to the PNB, but the City Treasurer sent
an advice letter to PNB that the garnishment was illegal and that it would hold PNB liable for any damages which may
be caused by the withholding the funds of the city.

ISSUE/S: W/N the funds of City of Caloocan w PNB may be garnished to satisfy Santiagos claim.

RULING: YES
The rule is and has always been that all government funds deposited in the PNB or any other official depositary of the
Philippine Government by any of its agencies or instrumentalities, whether by general or special deposit, remain government
funds and may not be subject to garnishment or levy, in the absence of a corresponding appropriation as required by law.
Even though the rule as to immunity of a state from suit is relaxed, the power of the courts ends when the judgment is rendered.
Although the liability of the state has been judicially ascertained, the state is at liberty to determine for itself whether to pay the
judgment or not, and execution cannot issue on a judgment against the state.

Such statutes do not authorize a seizure of state property to satisfy judgments recovered, and only convey an implication that the
legislature will recognize such judgment as final and make provision for the satisfaction thereof. However, the rule is not absolute
and has an exception, which is when theres a corresponding appropriation as required by law. In such a case, the monetary
judgment may be legally enforced by judicial processes. Herein, the City Council of Caloocan already approved and passed
Ordinance No. 0134, Series of 1992, allocating the amount of Php 439k for Santiagos backwages plus interest. Thus, the case
fell squarely within the exception and meant that the judgment of the RTC could then be validly enforced against such funds.

-----------------

Garnishment is considered a specie of attachment by means of which the plaintiff seeks to subject to his claim property of the
defendant in the hands of a third person, or money owed by such third person or garnishee to the defendant.