Constitutional Law, Political Law

Lockheed vs. UP G.R. No. 18591 AprIL 18, 2012 Immunity from Suit

FACTS: 

Petitioner Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. (Lockheed) entered into a contract for security services with respondent UP. In 1998, several security guards assigned to UP filed separate complaints against Lockheed and UP for payment of underpaid wages, 25% overtime pay, premium pay for rest days and special holidays, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, night shift differentials, 13th month pay, refund of cash bond, refund of deductions for the Mutual Benefits Aids System (MBAS), unpaid wages from December 16-31, 1998, and attorney’s fees.

 

ISSUE:

Having a charter with which it can sue and be sued, can UP funds be garnished?

 

RULING: 

We agree with UP that there was no point for Lockheed in discussing the doctrine of state immunity from suit as this was never an issue in this case. Clearly, UP consented to be sued when it participated in the proceedings below. What UP questions is the hasty garnishment of its funds in its PNB account. This Court finds that the CA correctly applied the NEA case.  Like NEA, UP is a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government and has the capacity to sue and be sued.  Thus, also like NEA, it cannot evade execution, and its funds may be subject to garnishment or levy. However, before execution may be had, a claim for payment of the judgment award must first be filed with the COA.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.