On 18 April 2012, the Supreme Court promulgated its Decision in the Case

Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency v. University of the

Philippines. In this case, the High Court ruled that the doctrine of state
immunity is a non-issue since the UP consented to be sued when it
participated in the proceedings. It further held that UP is a juridical
personality separate and distinct from the government and has the
capacity to sue and be sued. Finally, the Court ruled that UP cannot evade
execution and its funds may be subject to garnishment or levy, but a claim
with the Commission on Audit will have to be made filed first.

Over four months after this Decision was promulgated, the Supreme
Court, on 23 August 2012, promulgated the case University of the
Philippines v. Dizon. In this case, the Court held that UP is a government
instrumentality performing the State’s constitutional mandate of promoting
quality and accessible education. It further stated that as a government
instrumentality, UP administers special funds, which are government funds
that are public in character. Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that the UP
funds cannot be validly made a subject of a writ of execution or
garnishment.

It seemed that the High Court changed its mind on the exact nature of the
University of the Philippines in only four months. It is to be noted that the
same three justices sat in these two cases: Justices Leonardo-De Castro,
Bersamin, and Villarama, with the addition of Justices Peralta and Reyes in
the Lockheed case and Justices Del Castillo and Perlas-Bernabe in the
Dizon case.

But a deeper comparison of the two cases may give insight as to why the
Court decided the way it did. For one, the Lockheed case was a labor
case for unpaid wages, etc, involving the security guards; while the Dizon
case involved the construction and renovation of a building to be used in
pursuit of the purposes for which the UP was established.

Yet both objects were covered by contracts, so why did the Court have to
rule differently from the other?