G.R. No. 168289 – 630 Phil. 305 – 616 SCRA 315 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – State Immunity From Suit – Execution of Judgment against the State – Preliminary Attachment Not Allowed against the State
In 2000, Mayor Felix Ople of Hagonoy, Bulacan, approached Emily Rose Go Ko Lim Chao for her to deliver motor vehicles to the municipality. Based on the verbal assurance of the mayor, Emily delivered 21 motor vehicles. However, the municipality never paid her. She then filed a civil case against Hagonoy. She also prayed for the preliminary attachment of the assets of Hagonoy which was granted by the trial court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the writ of preliminary attachment is proper.
HELD: No. The writ must be dissolved. While there is merit in Emily’s position that she, by affidavit, was able to substantiate the allegation of fraud against Hagonoy, and ordinarily, the issuance of the writ would have been justified. Still, the writ of attachment in this case would only prove to be useless and unnecessary under the premises, since the property of the municipality may not, in the event that her claim is validated, be subjected to writs of execution and garnishment — unless, of course, there has been a corresponding appropriation provided by law.
Again, the State may give its consent to be sued but just the same it may limit claimant’s action “only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution” and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriations as required by 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.
