GR L 19856; (September, 1963) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19856; September 16, 1963
KINDIPAN BELLENG, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (CITY ENGINEER OF BAGUIO), respondents-appellees.
FACTS
The petitioner, Kindipan Belleng, was a laborer for over thirty years in the Office of the City Engineer of Baguio. He suffered a snake bite while working, resulting in the amputation of his leg. He filed a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act against the Republic of the Philippines (City Engineer of Baguio). The claim was uncontroverted, and after an ex-parte hearing, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission issued a final award in his favor amounting to P3,088.27.
The City Engineer failed to comply with the award. Belleng then filed a petition for enforcement with the Court of First Instance of Baguio, which granted his motion for execution. However, upon a motion filed by the Solicitor General, the court quashed the writ of execution. It ruled that while the government may be sued under the compensation law, its immunity from execution was not waived. The court suggested the proper remedy was to file a claim with the Auditor General. Belleng appealed this order.
ISSUE
Whether the final award from the Workmen’s Compensation Commission can be enforced against the Government through a writ of execution issued by a court.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order quashing the writ of execution. The legal logic rests on harmonizing two distinct statutory provisions. While the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act No. 3428, as amended) expressly applies to government employees and grants the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over their claims, and further provides for enforcement through the regular courts, this consent to be sued is not absolute.
This consent is regulated by Act No. 3083, Section 7 of which explicitly states, “No execution shall issue upon any judgment rendered by any court against the Government of the Philippine Islands under the provisions of this Act.” The Court found no conflict or implied repeal between these laws. The government, in consenting to be sued under the compensation act, did not waive the specific condition against execution prescribed by Act No. 3083. The state may impose conditions when it grants the right to sue it. Consequently, a claimant’s action against the government in compensation cases proceeds only up to the rendition of judgment, not to the stage of execution.
The Court acknowledged the appellant’s plight but emphasized it could not sanction a prohibited remedy. It directed the appellant to seek satisfaction of his award through the compensation guarantee fund mechanism outlined in Section 53 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which requires government entities to make contributions for this purpose. Alternatively, as suggested below, he could apply to the Auditor General for payment. The appealed order was affirmed.