22 Aug 2014
"The sheriffs' notices of garnishment are legally baseless, violative of due process, premature at best, and hence patently void," declared Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management (PSALM) Corporation President and CEO Emmanuel R. Ledesma, Jr.
Mr. Ledesma made this statement in reference to the notices of garnishment issued by the sheriffs of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Quezon City (QC) Office of the Clerk of Court and Ex-officio Sheriff, to PSALM's banks, customers, and other energy industry partners, purportedly in accordance with the Supreme Court Special Third Division's Resolution dated 30 June 2014 in NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA), represented by its President Roger S. San Juan, Sr., et. al. v. The National Power Corporation, National Power Board of Directors, et. al. (G.R. No. 156208). PSALM's alleged payables was set by the sheriffs (a) at P60,244,316,841.88 for the class suit petitioners (comprising around 8,018 beneficiaries based on the petitioners' representation to the Supreme Court) inclusive of the ten percent (10%) lien amounting to P6,024,431,684.18 for the petitioners' two lawyers, and (b) at P1,807,329,725.25 for the RTC-QC as lawful fees and costs for the execution of the Supreme Court's Resolution. The sheriffs also issued a demand against PSALM for the immediate settlement of the same amounts of money.
Mr. Ledesma explains that pursuant to established jurisprudence, public policy considerations dictate (a) that government funds dedicated for specific public uses may not be diverted for other purposes and seized under writs of garnishment to satisfy monetary judgments by courts, and (b) that all disbursements of public funds should be covered by an appropriation from Congress, to avoid disruption of public functions. Jurisprudence likewise provides that a money claim against the government, despite validation in a final and executory judgment, should first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA) given its primary jurisdiction to examine, audit, and settle all claims against the government pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code of the Philippines). These safeguards are embodied in Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-2000 dated 25 October 2000 addressed to judges of lower courts, with subject "Exercise of Caution, Prudence and Judiciousness in the Issuance of Writs of Execution to Satisfy Money Judgments Against Government Agencies and Local Government Units", which was echoed in COA Circular No. 2001-002 dated 31July 2001.
In any case, Mr. Ledesma points out that the sheriffs' actions are manifestly inconsistent with the express terms of the Supreme Court's earlier Resolution dated 02 December 2009 on the same case. This 2009 Resolution, which still holds true, emphasizes PSALM's right to due process and PSALM's mere subsidiary liability, as follows:
"On PSALM's contention that since it was not a party to the case and that the petitioners are not its employees, the properties that it acquired from NPC cannot be levied, is untenable. The issue here is about PSALM's assets that were acquired from NPC. As explained above, PSALM took ownership over most of NPC's assets. There was indeed a transfer of interest over these assets - from NPC to PSALM - by operation of law. These properties may be used to satisfy our judgment. This being the case, petitioners may go after such properties. The fact that PSALM is a non-party to the case will not prevent the levying of the said properties, including their fruits and proceeds. However, PSALM should not be denied due process. The levying of said properties and their fruits/proceeds, if still needed in case NPC's properties are insufficient to satisfy our judgment, is without prejudice to PSALM's participation in said proceedings. Its participation therein is necessary to prevent the levying of properties other than that it had acquired from NPC. Such a proceeding is to be conducted in the proper forum where the petitioners may take the appropriate action."
Mr. Ledesma notes that the sheriffs, contrary to these requirements, utterly failed to accord PSALM with due process, which includes an opportunity to avail itself of all judicial remedies to question the enforcement of any claim against its properties, and to demonstrate that NPC's properties have actually been first executed upon but proved to be insufficient to fully satisfy the judgment. He additionally notes that the sheriffs failed to support their demanded sums of money with computational details which, as a matter of justice and fairness and in accordance with the prohibition against double compensation, should have specifically excluded separation pay previously received from NPC or PSALM and/or income earned through new employment in NPC, PSALM or other government entities.
"In light of the foregoing, in order to preclude any devastating effects on the general welfare and the country's energy security and financial stability, PSALM cautions the recipients of the notices of garnishment against unlawfully, carelessly, and hastily releasing PSALM's receivables or bank deposits in their possession," Mr. Ledesma stated.
Strategic Communications and Partnership Division |