Department of Agriculture vs.

NLRC, 

GR. No. 104269, Nov 11, 1993

FACTS

The petitioner DA and the Sultan Security Agency (SSA) entered into a contract for the latter to
provide security services to the stated governmental body. As a result, the SSA stationed
security at the DA's different locations. Several SSA guards filed a lawsuit against the DA and
SSA for underpayment of salaries, nonpayment of the 13th month salary, and other violations.
The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled that the DA was jointly and severally liable with the SSA for
the payment of the money claims, and a warrant of execution was issued. The DA petitioned the
NLRC to quash the writ of execution, but the NLRC refused. The DA claims State immunity. 

ISSUE

Whether or not the writ of execution be directed against the properties of the DA to satisfy a final
and executory judgment? 

RULING

No,

When the state gives its consent to be sued, it does thereby necessarily consent to unrestrained
execution against it. tersely put, when the State waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to
give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State has a liability. The Court
reiterated Republic v. Villasor: “power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since
government funds and properties may not be seized under writs or execution or garnishment to
satisfy such judgments. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the correspondent
appropriation as required by law.”