Execution/Garnishment v. Government

“Trial judges should not immediately issue writs of execution or garnishment against the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities to enforce money judgments. They should bear in mind that the primary jurisdiction to examine, audit, and settle all claims of any sort from the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities pertains to the Commission on Audit (COA) pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code of the Philippines).”

The Court stressed that the UP is a government instrumentality performing the State’s constitutional mandate of promoting quality and accessible education and that all the funds going into its possession, including interest from its bank deposits constitute a “special trust fund,” the disbursement of which should always be aligned with the UP’s mission and purpose, and should always be subject to auditing by the COA. “Hence the funds subject of this action could not be validly made the subject of the RTC’s writ of execution or garnishment. The adverse judgment 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 means its liability,” ruled the Court. (UP v. Dizon, August 23, 2012)