Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Up vs. Dizon PDF
Up vs. Dizon PDF
Executive Order No. 13 does not violate Pichay’s right to due process and
the equal protection of the laws
Pichay’s right to due process was not violated when the IAD-ODESLA
took cognizance of the administrative complaint against him. In administrative
proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the
person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum
requirements of due process, which simply means having the opportunity to
explain one’s side. Hence, as long as Pichay was given the opportunity to explain
his side and present evidence, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily
complied with because what the law abhors is an absolute lack of opportunity to
be heard.
The funds of the UP are government funds that are public of character which could
not be validly made the subject of a writ of execution or garnishment.
u s t l a w l a w r e v i e w, v o l l v i i , n o . 1 , n o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2
p ol i t ic a l l aw 137
the College of Arts and Sciences Building in the campus of the University of the
Philippines in Los Baños (UPLB). In the course of the implementation of the
contract, Stern Builders submitted three progress billings corresponding to the
work accomplished, but the UP paid only two of the billings. The third billing
was not paid due to its disallowance by the Commission on Audit (COA). Despite
the lifting of the disallowance, the UP failed to pay the billing, prompting Stern
Builders to sue the UP and officials to collect the unpaid billing and to recover
various damages.
ISSUE:
HELD:
The funds of the UP are government funds that are public in character.
They include the income accruing from the use of real property ceded to the UP
that may be spent only for the attainment of its institutional objectives. Hence,
the funds subject of this action could not be validly made the subject of writ of
execution or garnishment. The adverse judgment rendered against the UP in a suit
to which it had impliedly consented was not immediately enforceable by execution
against the UP, because suability of the State did not necessarily mean its liability.
u s t l a w l a w r e v i e w, v o l l v i i , n o . 1 , n o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2