|
LOCKHEED DETECTIVE
AND WATCHMAN AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, |
G.R. No. 185918
Present: |
|
- versus - |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, Acting Chairperson, PERALTA, * BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and REYES,** JJ |
|
UNIVERSITY OF THE Respondent. |
Promulgated:
April 18, 2012 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the August 20, 2008 Amended Decision[1] and December 23, 2008 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91281.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. (Lockheed) entered into a contract for security services with respondent University of the Philippines (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 attorneys fees.
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, respondents Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc.
and UP as job contractor and principal, respectively, are hereby declared to be
solidarily liable to complainants for the following claims of the latter which
are found meritorious.
Underpaid
wages/salaries, premium pay for work on rest day and special holiday, holiday
pay, 5 days service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay for 1998,
refund of cash bond (deducted at P50.00 per month from January to May 1996,
P100.00 per month from June 1996 and P200.00 from November 1997), refund of
deduction for Mutual Benefits Aids System at the rate of P50.00 a month, and
attorneys fees; in the total amount of P1,184,763.12 broken down as follows
per attached computation of the Computation and [E]xamination Unit of this
Commission, which computation forms part of this Decision:
1.
JOSE SABALAS P77,983.62
2. TIRSO DOMASIAN
76,262.70
3. JUAN TAPEL 80,546.03
4. DINDO MURING 80,546.03
5. ALEXANDER ALLORDE
80,471.78
6. WILFREDO ESCOBAR
80,160.63
7. FERDINAND VELASQUEZ 78,595.53
8. ANTHONY GONZALES
76,869.97
9. SAMUEL ESCARIO
80,509.78
10. PEDRO FAILORINA
80,350.87
11. MATEO TANELA
70,590.58
12. JOB SABALAS 59,362.40
13. ANDRES DACANAYAN 77,403.73
14. EDDIE OLIVAR 77,403.73
P1,077,057.38
plus 10% attorneys fees 107,705.74
GRAND TOTAL AWARD P1,184,763.12
Third
party respondent University of the Philippines is hereby declared to be liable
to Third Party Complainant and cross claimant Lockheed Detective and Watchman
Agency for the unpaid legislated salary increases of the latters security
guards for the years 1996 to
The
other claims are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit (night shift differential
and 13th month pay) or for having been paid in the course of this
proceedings (salaries for
The
claims of Erlindo Collado, Rogelio Banjao and Amor Banjao are hereby DISMISSED
as amicably settled for and in consideration of the amounts of P12,315.72,
P12,271.77 and P12,819.33, respectively.
SO
ORDERED.[3]
Both Lockheed and UP
appealed the Labor Arbiters decision. By
Decision[4]
dated
WHEREFORE,
the decision appealed from is hereby modified as follows:
1. Complainants claims for premium pay for work on rest
day and special holiday, and 5 days service incentive leave pay, are hereby
dismissed for lack of basis.
2.
The respondent
University of the
The Financial Analyst is hereby ordered to recompute
the awards of the complainants in accordance with the foregoing modifications.
SO ORDERED.[5]
The complaining security
guards and UP filed their respective motions for reconsideration. On
As the parties did not appeal the NLRC
decision, the same became final and executory on
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we grant this instant appeal. The Order dated
SO
ORDERED.[8]
UP moved to reconsider the
NLRC resolution. On
The NLRC order and resolution having
become final, Lockheed filed a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of
execution. The same was granted on
On P12,142,522.69 (inclusive of execution
fee).
In
a letter[11]
dated P12,142,522.69.
PNB likewise reminded UP that the bank
only has 10 working days from receipt of the order to deliver the garnished
funds and unless it receives a notice from UP or the NLRC before the expiry of
the 10-day period regarding the issuance of a court order or writ of injunction
discharging or enjoining the implementation and execution of the Notice of
Garnishment and Writ of Execution, the bank shall be constrained to cause the release
of the garnished funds in favor of the NLRC.
On
On P12,062,398.71
was withdrawn by the sheriff from UPs PNB account.[14]
On
I.
The
concept of solidary liability by an indirect employer notwithstanding,
respondent NLRC gravely abused its discretion in a manner amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction by misusing such concept to justify the garnishment by
the executing Sheriff of public/government funds belonging to UP.
II.
Respondents NLRC and Arbiter LORA acted without
jurisdiction or gravely abused their discretion in a manner amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction when, by means of an Alias Writ of Execution against
petitioner UP, they authorized respondent Sheriff to garnish UPs public funds.
Similarly, respondent LORA gravely abused her discretion when she resolved
petitioners Motion to Quash Notice of Garnishment addressed to, and intended
for, the NLRC, and when she unilaterally and arbitrarily disregarded an
official Certification that the funds garnished are public/government funds,
and thereby allowed respondent Sheriff to withdraw the same from PNB.
III.
Respondents
gravely abused their discretion in a manner amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when they, despite prior knowledge, effected the execution that
caused paralyzation and dislocation to petitioners governmental functions.[15]
On
On reconsideration, however, the CA issued the assailed Amended Decision. It held that without departing from its findings that the funds covered in the savings account sought to be garnished do not fall within the classification of public funds, it reconsiders the dismissal of the petition in light of the ruling in the case of National Electrification Administration v. Morales[18] which mandates that all money claims against the government must first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA).
Lockheed moved to reconsider the
amended decision but the same was denied in the assailed CA Resolution dated
Hence this petition by Lockheed raising the following arguments:
1. RESPONDENT UP IS A GOVERNMENT ENTITY WITH A SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT PERSONALITY FROM THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND HAS ITS OWN CHARTER
GRANTING IT THE RIGHT TO SUE AND BE SUED. IT THEREFORE CANNOT AVAIL OF THE
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT OF THE GOVERNMENT. NOT HAVING IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, RESPONDENT
UP CAN BE HELD LIABLE AND EXECUTION CAN THUS ENSUE.
2. MOREOVER, IF THE COURT LENDS IT ASSENT TO THE
INVOCATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY, THIS WILL RESULT [IN] GRAVE
INJUSTICE.
3. FURTHERMORE, THE PROTESTATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT ARE
TOO LATE IN THE DAY, AS THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TERMINATED.[20]
Lockheed contends that UP has its own separate and distinct juridical entity from the national government and has its own charter. Thus, it can be sued and be held liable. Moreover, Executive Order No. 714 entitled Fiscal Control and Management of the Funds of UP recognizes that as an institution of higher learning, UP has always granted full management and control of its affairs including its financial affairs.[21] Therefore, it cannot shield itself from its private contractual liabilities by simply invoking the public character of its funds. Lockheed also cites several cases wherein it was ruled that funds of public corporations which can sue and be sued were not exempt from garnishment.
Lockheed likewise argues that the rulings in the NEA and MIAA cases are inapplicable. It contends that UP is not similarly situated
with NEA because the jurisdiction of COA over the accounts of UP is only on a
post-audit basis. As to the MIAA
case, the liability of MIAA pertains to the real estate taxes imposed by the
City of
Lockheed moreover submits that UP cannot invoke state immunity to justify and perpetrate an injustice. UP itself admitted its liability and thus it should not be allowed to renege on its contractual obligations. Lockheed contends that this might create a ruinous precedent that would likely affect the relationship between the public and private sectors.
Lastly, Lockheed contends that UP cannot anymore seek the quashal of the writ of execution and notice of garnishment as they are already fait accompli.
For its part, UP contends
that it did not invoke the doctrine of state immunity from suit in the
proceedings a quo and in fact, it did
not object to being sued before the labor department. It maintains, however, that suability does not
necessarily mean liability. UP argues
that the CA correctly applied the NEA ruling when it held that all money
claims must be filed with the COA.
As to alleged injustice that may result for invocation of state immunity from suit, UP reiterates that it consented to be sued and even participated in the proceedings below. Lockheed cannot now claim that invocation of state immunity, which UP did not invoke in the first place, can result in injustice.
On the fait accompli argument,
UP argues that Lockheed cannot wash its hands from liability for the
consummated garnishment and execution of UPs trust fund in the amount of P12,062,398.71.
UP cites that damage was done to UP and
the beneficiaries of the fund when said funds, which were earmarked for
specific educational purposes, were misapplied, for instance, to answer for the
execution fee of P120,123.98 unilaterally stipulated by the sheriff. Lockheed, being the party which procured the
illegal garnishment, should be held primarily liable. The mere fact that the CA set aside the writ
of garnishment confirms the liability of Lockheed to reimburse and indemnify in
accordance with law.
The petition has no merit.
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. Under Commonwealth Act No. 327,[22]
as amended by Section 26 of P.D. No. 1445,[23]
it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle all debts and claims of any sort due from or
owing the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations and
their subsidiaries. With respect to
money claims arising from the implementation of Republic Act No. 6758,[24]
their allowance or disallowance is for COA to decide, subject only to the
remedy of appeal by petition for certiorari
to this Court.[25]
We cannot subscribe
to Lockheeds argument that NEA is not similarly situated with UP because the COAs
jurisdiction over the latter is only on post-audit basis. A reading of the pertinent Commonwealth Act
provision clearly shows that it does not make any distinction as to which of
the government subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries whose debts
should be filed before the COA.
As to the fait accompli argument of Lockheed,
contrary to its claim that there is nothing that can be done since the funds of
UP had already been garnished, since the garnishment was erroneously carried
out and did not go through the proper procedure (the filing of a claim with the
COA), UP is entitled to reimbursement of the garnished funds plus interest of
6% per annum, to be computed from the time of judicial demand to be reckoned
from the time UP filed a petition for certiorari before the CA which occurred
right after the withdrawal of the garnished funds from PNB.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. Petitioner
Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. is ordered to REIMBURSE respondent University of the Philippines the amount of P12,062,398.71
plus interest of 6% per annum, to be computed from September 12, 2005 up to the
finality of this Decision, and 12% interest on the entire amount from date of finality
of this Decision until fully paid.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR: TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Acting Chairperson |
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
BIENVENIDO
L. REYES Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
|
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated April 2, 2012.
**
Designated additional member per
Raffle dated April 16, 2012.
[1] Rollo, pp. 47-50. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a member of this Court) and Romeo F. Barza concurring.
[2]
[3] CA rollo, pp. 23-24.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] G.R. Nos. 147062-64,
[18] G.R. No. 154200,
[19] G.R. No. 155650,
[20] Rollo, p. 17.
[21]
[22] An Act Fixing the Time Within Which the
Auditor General Shall Render His Decisions and Prescribing the Manner of Appeal
Therefrom.
[23] Ordaining And Instituting A Government Auditing Code
Of The
Section 26. General jurisdiction.
The authority and powers of the Commission shall extend to and comprehend all
matters relating to auditing procedures, systems and controls, the keeping of
the general accounts of the Government, the preservation of vouchers pertaining
thereto for a period of ten years, the examination and inspection of the books,
records, and papers relating to those accounts; and the audit and settlement of
the accounts of all persons respecting funds or property received or held by
them in an accountable capacity, as well as the examination, audit, and
settlement of all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing to the
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities. The said
jurisdiction extends to all government-owned or controlled corporations,
including their subsidiaries, and other self-governing boards, commissions, or
agencies of the Government, and as herein prescribed, including
non-governmental entities subsidized by the government, those funded by
donations through the government, those required to pay levies or government
share, and those for which the government has put up a counterpart fund or
those partly funded by the government.
[24] Compensation and Position Classification Act
of 1989.
[25] National Electrification Administration v. Morales, supra note 18, at 89-91.