October 17, 1996 | G.R. No. 120385
Republic of the Philippines, represented by Asset Privatization Trust (APT), petitioner
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), et al., respondents
FACTS:
Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI) was one of the companies sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Government after the 1986 EDSA uprising. Subsequently, its management was transferred from the National Investment Development Corp. to APT, which recommended its privatization in order to prevent it from incurring further losses. As part of the privatization scheme, some 500 employees were retrenched. Consequently, a series of labor-related suits was instituted by PNEI employees against their employer before the NLRC. These are:
Case #1: Members of the Pantranco Employees Association (PEA-PTGWO) filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, among other claims, against PNEI. Hon. Carpio of NLRC ruled in favor of the employees and directed the Sheriff to execute the writ of execution he had issued earlier. However, the Sheriff was only able to collect P22,300.00 through the sale of the levied assets of PNEI, which left PNEI with a balance of P68.95 million. As such, the Sheriff served a notice of garnishment to the deposits of both PNEI or APT in The Land Bank to cover the balance. But instead of complying, The Land Bank said the funds of APT were public in nature, hence should not be subject to garnishment.
Case #2: Members of the Pantranco Association of Concerned Employees Union (PACEU) filed a complaint for the non-payment of benefits against PNEI, APT, and DOTC. Similar to the first case, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employees and directed the respondent agencies to pay P39.74 million. By virtue of the writ of execution issued by the court, the levied assets of PNEI were sold and yielded P1.2 million. Meanwhile, PEA-PTGWO filed a Motion for Intervention before the Labor Arbiter, enjoining the sale of PNEI assets in favor of PACEU because PNEI still owed members of PEA-PTGWO the sum of P68.95 million (see case #1).
Case #3: Antonio Cabugao, a PNEI employee, filed before the NLRC a complaint for non-payment of benefits against his employer. Yet again, the NLRC ruled in his favor and directed PNEI to pay him P208,954.60. A writ of execution was similarly issued by the court.
But even before any assets of PNEI and APT could be garnished or levied for sale to satisfy the judgment in case #3, APT filed this instant petition before the SC, enjoining the courts from implementing the writs of execution issued in all three cases against PNEI. Subsequently, the SC issued a TRO preventing the concerned Sheriffs from implementing any of the aforementioned writs of execution against APT.
ISSUE:
Whether or not APT, a government instrument that manages a government-owned company, should be held liable for the latter's obligations.
HELD:
No, the Court held that even if express consent to be sued was provided by APT by way of Proclamation No. 50, such consent does not amount to automatic liability on the part of APT. All that such a consent does is to provide the other parties an opportunity to be heard. Claimants' actions are limited only up to the completion of the proceedings anterior to the stage of execution. Too, the power of the courts ends when a judgment has been rendered, since government funds cannot be seized under warrants of execution or garnishment.
Similarly, the Court held that since all it does is serve as a conservator of PNEI's assets, APT should not be held solidarily liable with PNEI's obligations. Therefore, all the writs of execution and notices of garnishment should be directed only to PNEI and not to include APT because the two are not one and the same. As such, APT's petition before the SC is granted, which means all writs of execution and notices of garnishment against APT in line with PNEI's obligations are reversed, and the TRO enjoining enjoining the concerned Sherrifs from looking into the assets of APT is hereby made permanent.