Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 182358 2013-02-20	SECRETARY OF HEALTH v. PHIL PHARMAWEALTH DEL CASTILLO, J.
The discussion of this Court in Department of Agriculture v. National Labor Relations Commission[32] on the doctrine of non-suability is enlightening.
	GR No. 171182 2012-08-23	UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN S. DIZON BERSAMIN, J.
Thereupon, on January 10, 2005, the UP brought a petition for certiorari in the CA to challenge the jurisdiction of the RTC in issuing the order of December 21, 2004 (CA-G.R. CV No. 88125).[35] Aside from raising the denial of due process, the UP averred that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that there was no longer any legal impediment to the release of the garnished funds. The UP argued that government funds and properties could not be seized by virtue of writs of execution or garnishment, as held in Department of Agriculture v. National Labor Relations Commission,[36] and citing Section 84 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 to the effect that "[r]evenue funds shall not be paid out of any public treasury or depository except in pursuance of an appropriation law or other specific statutory authority;" and that the order of garnishment clashed with the ruling in University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Ligot-Telan[37] to the effect that the funds belonging to the UP were public funds.
	GR No. 171182 2012-08-23	UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN S. DIZON BERSAMIN, J.
The UP argues that the amount earmarked for the construction project had been purposely set aside only for the aborted project and did not include incidental matters like the awards of actual damages, moral damages and attorney's fees. In support of its argument, the UP cited Article 12.2 of the General Construction Agreement, which stipulated that no deductions would be allowed for the payment of claims, damages, losses and expenses, including attorney's fees, in case of any litigation arising out of the performance of the work. The UP insists that the CA decision was inconsistent with the rulings in Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego[61] and Department of Agriculture v. NLRC[62] to the effect that government funds and properties could not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy judgment awards.