This is a pauper's  appeal  urging  the  enforcement by writ of execution of a final award  in the sum of P3,088.27 granted to the appellant by the Workmen's Compensation Commission against the  Republic of the  Philippines.

The appellant, Kindipan Belleng, a laborer for more than thirty (30) years in  the  Office of the City  Engineer of Baguio, was bitten by a snake,  and, as a result, one of his legs had  to  be amputated.   He filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act against the  "Republic of the  Philippines City  Engineer  of Baguio",   which  was docketed as BWC  Case No. 1516-R01.  The claim was uncontroverted, and   the  case was heard ex parte ursuant to an order of  an Associate  Commissioner of the Workmen's Compensation  Commission,  the hearing officer  rendered, on 3 January 1962, a resolution and award in favor of  the  claimant. The awardee  then requested,  on 29 January 1962, the City Engineer of Baguio to comply with the resolution and award, but  the latter  failed to act.^[1]

Claimant then filed with the Court of First Instance of Baguio City a petition  to enforce the said  resolution and award.  The  respondents  did  not  answer,  or  oppose the  petition. The  court rendered judgment, and,  upon motion, ordered that execution issue.  The sheriff served the writ of execution upon the City Engineer's Office. On 29 March  1962, however, the court,  over the objection of the petitioner, sustained a motion "to quash and/or stay execution"  filed  by the Solicitor- General.  The petitioner then filed  a motion  for reconsideration, and, acting upon the  same,  the court promulgated an order on  27 April 1962, reading as follows:

"Petitioner has filed  a motion for reconsideration to the order of this Court denying the  issuance of a writ of execution against the Government. The mere fact that  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Law applies  to  the  Government does not mean  that  the immunity from suit has been waived insofar as the issuance of execution is concerned.  The proper remedy is the filing  of a claim before the Auditor- General's Office."

The above-quoted  order  is now the  subject  of the present appeal.

The Workmen's Compensation  Act applies

"to mounted messengers in the service of the National Government and all its political subdivisions and to  the   employees and laborers employed  in  public works and in the industrial concerns of the Government and to all other persons performing manual labor  in the service of the National Government and its  political   subdivisions  and  instrumentalities; * * * " (Sec. 2,  Act 3428,  as  amended by Rep. Act  772);

and the "Workmen's  Compensation  Commissioner  shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims  for compensation *  * *"   (Sec. 46, Act 3428,  as added  by Section 24, Republic Act  772).  However, the award  is enforced through the regular courts of justice  (Section 51, Act  3428, as amended  by Republic  Act  772).

While Section 53  of  the Workmen's Compensation  Act directs the national, provincial, and municipal governments to deposit an amount to be determined by the Workmen's Compensation commissioner, to guarantee payment of Compensation to injured laborers employed by them, and these deposits may be disbursed,  through the authority of the commissioner or his deputy, as compensation payments to the said laborers  of the government entities "making the contribution (Section 53, Act 3428, as amended by Republic Act 772), nevertheless, Section 7 of Act  3083 provides:

"Sec, 7. No execution shall issue upon any judgment rendered by any court against the  Government of the Philippine Islands under the provisions of this  Act; * * *."

We find the position  taken by appellant,  that the Workmen's Compensation Act has repealed, by implication,  section 7 of Act 3083, to be untenable.  This Court finds harmony, rather than conflict, in the foregoing provisions of law.   In consenting to  be sued under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the  Government did  not waive the condition prescribed by Act 3083  that no  execution may issue against it by any court.

"The state  may give its consent to  be sued by private  parties either by a general or by  a special law. But when this concession is  granted, the state may limit or  regulate the right of action thus given by such  conditions as  it may deem, necessary * * *." (Sinco, Philippine Political Law, p. 37)

As things now stand, the state  has allowed itself to be sued in  compensation cases, but has limited the claimant's action only up to the completion  of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution.  There being no incompatibility between them, the Workmen's Compensation Act did not repeal, by implication,  Section 7 of  Act 3083.

This Court is not unmindful  of the pauper-appellant's plight for the delayed satisfaction  of his claim,  but It cannot,  on  equitable considerations,  sanction a  remedy which the law prohibits.

Appellant's remedy lies in section 53 of the Compensation Act, requiring the national, provincial, and municipal governments  and  government-owned  or controlled  corporations to make contributions to the compensation guarantee fund therein provided.  If appellant's employer contributed to the fund in the amount previously determined by  the Workmen's  Compensation Commissioner,  and if there is a balance available, the said Commissioner, as depositary or trustee,  upon proper request, may authorize the disbursement of such fund to satisfy the award in accordance with Section 53 of Act 3428, as amended.   Otherwise, appellant  must apply to the Auditor-General, as suggested by the court below.

For the foregoing reasons, the appealed order is affirmed, and, as  recommended  by the Solicitor-General,  without costs against the  appellant.

Within  five (5)  days after this decision becomes final, let a certified copy be sent to the Office of the President of the Philippines in  connection with the letter of notification sent  to him by  the Clerk of Court of the  Court of First Instance of Baguio, dated 23 May 1962,  pursuant to Section 7 of  Act 3083.  So  ordered.

Bengzon,  C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ.,  concur.

 

---

^[1]  The record shows a 1st Indorsement, dated 31 May  1962,  of the Department Legal Counsel of the Department of Public Works and Communications to the Commissioner of Public Highways "requesting appropriate action".