gr_174747_2016

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 10-2000 TO : All Judges of Lower Courts SUBJECT : Exercise of Utmost Caution, Prudence and Judiciousness in the Issuance of Writs of Execution to Satisfy Money Judgments Against Government Agencies and Local Government Units In order to prevent possible circumvention of the rules and procedures of the Commission on Audit, judges are hereby enjoined to observe utmost caution, prudence and judiciousness in the issuance of writs of execution to satisfy money judgments against government agencies and local government units. Judges should bear in mind that in Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego (31 SCRA 617, 625 ), this Court explicitly stated: The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, 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 appropriation 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, as appropriated by law. Moreover, it is settled jurisprudence that upon determination of State liability, the prosecution, enforcement or satisfaction thereof must still be pursued in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in P.D. No. 1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693, 701-02 citing Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84 ).

All money claims against the Government must first be filed with the Commission on Audit which must act upon it within sixty days. Rejection of the claim will authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on certiorari and in effect sue the State thereby (P.D. 1445, Sections 49-50). .

. . (Emphasis supplied) Thus, in National Electrification Administration v. Morales,87 while entitlement to claims for rice allowance, meal allowance, medical/dental/optical allowance, children's allowance, and longevity pay under Republic Act No. 6758 may be adjudicated by the trial court, a separate action must be filed before the Commission on Audit for the satisfaction of the judgment award.

Similarly, in Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency v. University of the Philippines,88 this Court reimbursed to the University of the Philippines its funds that were garnished upon orders of the National Labor Relations Commission for the satisfaction of a judgment award. The reimbursement was on the ground that the money claim must first be filed before the Commission on Audit. The situation in this case, however, is different from these previous cases.

Petitioner's Board of Trustees already issued the Resolution on September 23, 1992 for the release of funds to pay separation benefits to terminated employees of Bicolandia Sugar Development Corporation.89 Private respondents' checks were released by petitioner to the Arbitration Branch of the Labor Arbiter in 1992.90 Under these circumstances, it is presumed that the funds to be used for private respondents' separation benefits have already been appropriated and disbursed. This would account for why private respondents' co-complainants were able to claim their checks without need of filing a separate claim before the Commission on Audit. In this instance, private respondents' separation benefits may be released to them without filing a separate money claim before the Commission on Audit.

It would be unjust and a violation of private respondents' right to equal protection if they were not allowed to claim, under the same conditions as their fellow workers, what is rightfully due to them.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Brion, J., on leave