Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1.) UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DIZON G.R. No. 171182, August 23, 2012 State Immunity Reason: It is important to know what the difference between suability and liability is. In this case, I apprehend when it comes to a period wherein a Government instrumentality is liable yet its funds cannot be subject to garnishment without proper appropriation. FACTS: 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 and the renovation of the College of Arts and Sciences Building in the campus of the UP Los Banos (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 officials 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 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 EO 174 and from the yearly appropriations, to achieve purposes laid down by Section 2 of Act 1870, as expanded in RA 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 garnishment. The adverse judgement 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. The funds of the UP are
Prepared by: BUENO, Melissa J. BMPE 06/29/2013
BMPE
06/29/2013
BMPE
06/29/2013
BMPE
06/29/2013
BMPE
06/29/2013