Practice question
Assume a contractor validly obtained a final money judgment against a national government department after the immunity issue was properly resolved. Without statutory authority for the proposed levy, a sheriff seizes vehicles devoted to the department’s public functions. The contractor argues that consent to suit necessarily authorized the seizure. Applying Department of Agriculture v. NLRC and PD 1445, Section 26, which answer is best?
- The levy is valid because all final judgments authorize unrestricted seizure of State property.
- The levy is valid because consent to suit and consent to execution are identical.
- The levy is valid if the contractor chooses only two vehicles.
- The judgment erases COA’s statutory functions over government money claims.
- The argument fails; consent to suit does not itself authorize execution against public property, and lawful payment procedures must be followed.
Legal references
- Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993, main decision, consent to suit and execution: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/nov1993/gr_104269_1993.html
- Presidential Decree No. 1445, June 11, 1978, Section 26, COA general jurisdiction: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/26/59533
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.