Department of Agriculture vs National Labor Relations Commission

G.R. No. 104269 – 277 SCRA 693 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – State Immunity From Suit – Consent to be Sued – Limitations – Prohibition against Execution of Judgment

In 1989, the Department of Agriculture (DA) Cagayan De Oro entered into a contract with Sultan Security Agency for it to provide security guards to its offices. In September 1990, SSA’s security guards filed a labor case against SSA and the DA for alleged labor standards violations. The security guards won the labor case. The decision became final and executory and the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution against SSA and the DA. The sheriff then levied the motor vehicles of the DA. The DA filed a petition for prohibition against the Sheriff before the NLRC. The NLRC denied the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the execution against the properties of the DA is proper.

HELD: No. It is true that the DA, by entering into a contract with the SSA, is deemed to have agreed to sue and be sued. However, such consent is only an allowance for the complainant to prove his or her claim in court. Once the claim is proven in court, the consent given by the State ends there. The judgment, if adverse to the government, may not be executed since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs or execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments. The reason behind this is public policy. Disbursements of public funds must be upon an appropriation law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.

Read full text.