This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-08-23 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The funds of the UP are government funds that are public in character. They include the income accruing from the use of real property ceded to the UP that may be spent only for the attainment of its institutional objectives.[77] 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,[78] because suability of the State did not necessarily mean its liability.[79] | |||||
|
2003-06-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The plea for setting aside the notice of garnishment was premised on the funds of the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation deposited with petitioner being "public in character." There was not even a categorical assertion to that effect. It is only the possibility of its being "public in character." The tone was thus irresolute, the approach diffident. The premise that the funds cold be spoken of as public in character may be accepted in the sense that the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation was a government-owned entity. It does not follow though that they were exempt from garnishment.[41] This was reiterated in the subsequent case of Philippine Rock Industries, Inc. v. Board of Liquidators:[42] | |||||