Aplicación del Modelo de Análisis de Discurso:

In the mean time, BML Trading won a bid to supply the Bureau of Telecommunications worth 10,500 for copper sulfate. This was garnished by the Sheriff as Labrador was doing business under the name BML Trading. BML however assigned its rights to Ong as Ong advanced the necessary funds to purchase the copper sulfate. He filed a third party claim.

ISSUE:

Could the money payable to BML be garnished even if it was still in the possession of the Bureau of Telecommunications?

HELD:

No. The notice of garnishment was made pursuant to an order of attachment against Labrador‘s property. By the process of garnishment, the plaintiff virtually sues the garnishee for a debt due to the defendant. The debtor stranger becomes a forced intervenor. The Director of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry, an officer of the Government of the Philippine Islands, when served with the writ of attachment, thus become party to the action. It becomes a suit against the state without their consent.

In this case, immunity from suit was not waived because the Bureau entered into a business transaction with BML. The Bureau is a service bureau, not engaged in business.

It further was never proved that Labrador was doing business under the name BML trading.

Petition dismissed.

FACTS:

 Petitioner Pacific Products filed an action for sum of money against Hilarion Labrador, doing business under the name and style of BML Trading and Supply. A court order was issued directing the Sheriff of Manila to attach the properties of the latter.

 BML Trading won in a bid to supply the Bureau of Telecommunications with 15,000 pounds of bluestone copper sulfate worth P10,500.00.

Labrador, as agent of BML Trading delivered the compound.

PACIFIC PRODUCTS V ONG

PACIFICPRODUCTS V.ONG

 Before the Bureau could release the payment to BML Trading, the Sheriff of Manila garnished P9,111.70 out of the P10,500.00.

 Unknown to Pacific, BML Trading, through its attorney in-fact, H.D. Labrador assigned its tights over the P10,500.00 to respondent, Vicente Ong.

o It was Ong who advanced the necessary funds to purchase the copper sulfate and the parties agreed that the profits will be shared by BML Trading and Vicente Ong on a 40-60 percent basis. It was also their agreement that BML Trading will waive its share in the net profits which may be realized from the transaction should it fail to secure the release of the payment.

 Pacific learned about the assignment only when a copy of the third party claim filed by Ong with the Office of the Sheriff of Manila was served on them.

 H.D. Labrador was declared in default and was ordered to pay Pacific the sum of P 9,111.70. The corresponding writ of execution was issued and the Sheriff of Manila further garnished Pl,181.65 of the P10,500.00 in the possession of the Bureau.

 Ong's third party claim was frustrated when Pacific filed an Indemnity Bond with the Office of the Sheriff.

 Ong filed an action for damages against Macario Ofilada in his capacity as Sheriff of Manila, the Pacific Products, and the First Quezon City Insurance.

 RTC dismissed the complaint but the CA reversed the decision. Hence, the instant appeal by certiorari filed by Pacific.

ISSUE: WON the garnishment was illegal and void – YES. Petition denied.

RATIO:

 It is noted that the notice of garnishment served upon the Bureau of Telecommunications was made pursuant to an order of attachment issued by the trial court in the case for sum of money against Labrador.

At the time of such service, the amount against which the notice was issued was still in the possession and control of the Bureau.

o Petitioner contends that immunity from suit was waived when the Bureau entered into a business transaction with BML Trading since in this jurisdiction, it is "a well established doctrine that when the Government engages in business, it abdicates part of its sovereign prerogatives and ascends to the level of a citizen".

o This contention is not correct. Suability would follow only if the contract entered into by the government is in the exercise of a proprietary as distinguished from a governmental function. The Bureau is a service bureau and is not engaged in business.

 By the process of garnishment, the plaintiff virtually sues the garnishee for a debt due to the defendant.

The debtor stranger becomes a forced intervenor – a party to the action upon service of the writ of attachment. The State, by virtue of its sovereignty may not be sued in its own courts except by express authorization by the Legislature, and to Subject its officers to garnishment would be to permit indirectly what is prohibited directly. Another reason is that

moneys sought to be garnished, as long as it remains in the hands of the disbursing officer of the Government, belong latter, although the defendant in garnishment may be entitled to a specific portion thereof. And still another reason which covers both of the foregoing is that every consideration of public policy forbids it.

FACTS:

 In an earlier decision, National Irrigation Administration (NIA) was declared liable for the injuries, resulting in the death, of Francisco Fontanilla, son of petitioner spouses Jose and Virginia Fontanilla, caused by the fault and/or negligence of NIA‘s driver employee Hugo Garcia.

The Court held that NIA is a government agency performing proprietary functions.

 NIA maintains, however, that it does not perform solely and primarily proprietary functions, but is an agency of the government tasked with governmental functions, and is therefore not liable for the tortuous act of its driver Garcia, who was not its special agent. For this, they have filed a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: WON NIA may be held liable for damages caused by its driver - YES

HELD:

 The functions of government have been classified into governmental or constituent and proprietary or

ministrant. The former involves the exercise of sovereignty and considered as compulsory; the latter connotes merely the exercise of proprietary functions and thus considered as optional.

 The National Irrigation Administration is a government agency with a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government. It is not a mere agency of the government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions. Therefore, it may be held liable for the damages caused by the negligent act of its driver who was not its special agent.

o NIA was not created for purposes of local government. While it may be true that the NIA was essentially a service agency of the government aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare, such fact does not make the NIA essentially and purely a "government-function" corporation.

o NIA was created for the purpose of "constructing, improving, rehabilitating, and administering all national irrigation systems in the Philippines, including all communal and pump irrigation projects." Certainly, the state and the community as a whole are largely benefited by the services the agency renders, but these functions are only incidental to the principal aim of the agency, which is the irrigation of lands.

o NIA is a government agency invested with a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government. It has its own assets and liabilities. It also has corporate powers to be exercised by a Board of Directors.

FONTANILLA V.MALIAMAN

The NIA is a government agency with a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government; it is a corporate body performing proprietary functions.

Thus, it may be held liable for damages caused by the negligent act of its river who was not a special agent.

FACTS:

A pickup owned and operated by the National Irrigation Administration driven officially of Hugo Garcia bumped a bicycle ridden by Francisco Fontanilla and Resituto Deligo. Fontanilla died as a result of his injuries.

Fontanilla‘s parents sued Nia for damages. The trial court directed NIA to pay damages and actual expenses.

ISSUE:

Could the award for moral damages be awarded?

HELD:

Yes. The solicitor general argues that Garcia was a regular driver, not a special agent who was performing a job or act foreign to his usual duties. Hence, the liability should not be borne by the government agency, but by Garcia himself.

The liability of the state has two aspects: its public or governmental aspects were it is liable for the tortuous acts of special agent only and its private or business aspects where it becomes liable as ordinary employer.

The NIA is an agency of the government exercising proprietary functions by express provision of its charter.

Given the negligence in the supervision of the driver as he was travelling at a high speed, NIA is directed to pay damages.

Petition granted.

CHAPTER IV: