8/16/2019 Digest Republic vs Villassor

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digest-republic-vs-villassor 1/1

Republic vs. Villasor (Consti1)

Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Hon. Guillermo P. Villasor, as Judge of the Court of

First Instance of Cebu, Branch I, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, the Sheriff of the City of Manila,

the Clerk of Court of First Instance of Cebu, P.J. Kiener Co., Ltd., Gavino Unchuan, and

International Construction Corporation, respondents.

November 28, 1973

Fernando, J:

Facts:

The decision that was rendered in favor of respondents P.J. Kiener Co., Ltd, Gavino

Unchuan and International Construction Corporation was declared final and executory

by Respondent Hon. Guillermo P. Villasor.

Pursuant to the said declaration, the corresponding Alias Writ of Execution was issued.

And for the strength of this writ, the provincial sheriff served notices of garnishment with

several banks, specially on the 'monies due the Armed Forces of the Philippines in the

form of deposits; the Philippines Veterans Bank received the same notice of

garnishment.

The funds of the AFP on deposit with the banks are public funds duly appropriated and

allocated for the payment of pensions of retireees, pay and allowances of military and

civillian personnel and for maintenance and operations of AFP.

Petitioner filed a petition against Villasor for acting in excess jurisdiction amounting to

lack of jurisdiction in granting the issuance of a Writ of Execution against the properties

of AFP, hence the notices and garnishments are null and void.

Issue:

Whether or not the Writ of Execution issued by respondent Judge Villasor is valid.

Held:

No

Ratio:

What was done by respondent Judge is not in conformity with the dictates of the

Constitution. It is a fundamental postulate of constitutionalism flowing from the juristic

concept of sovereignty that the state and its government is immune from suit unless it

gives its consent. A sovereign is exempt from suit not because of any formal conception

or obsolete theory but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right

as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.