Facts:
Fred, a city councilor, and another accused, were charged with Estafa before the RTC. They were subsequently acquitted, but held civilly liable to the complainant. The RTC thus issued a Notice of Garnishment pursuant to a Writ of Execution. Fred filed a motion to lift the notice of garnishment, alleging that he cannot withdraw his salary as councilor from the Philippine Veterans Bank, and that salaries are not subject to garnishment as a matter of public policy. The RTC denied the motion, and the subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by Fred. The CA affirmed the RTC orders.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC erred in directing the garnishment of Fred’s salaries.
Ruling:
Petition denied. In doing so, the Court clarified that it is more wise to rule that the salaries of public officials are subject to garnishment not merely because they have lost their public character upon deposit, as previously held in numerous cases, but because they are not covered by the exemptions provided under existing rules.
“Verily, the exemption under Rule 39, Section 9© of the 2019 Amended Rules of Court and Article 1708 of the Civil Code is meant to favor only laboring men or women whose works are manual, and not public official ssuch as Bagbagen. Persons belonging to the former group usually look to the reward of a day’s labor for immediate or present support, and such persons are more in need of the exemption than any other.
Concisely, public officials and laborers are subject to different rules and laws. At the risk of being repetitive, there is no law exempting the salaries of public officials from garnishment, whereas Article 1708 of the Civil Code grants such an exemption. To the salaries of laborers.
Furthermore, public officials are generally subject to stricter rules and policies involving their compensation, assets, and liabilities, given their constitutional role as custodians of public trust. On the other hand, laborers, such as private employees, are subject to the terms of their employment contracts and labor laws, which offer protective measures for their wages and earnings, consistent with the State’s constitutional mandate to afford full protection to labor.
Additionally, public officials and laborers differ significantly in the nature of their work and the manner by which their compensation is determined. Government officials are tasked with duties that serve the public interest and are often governed by statutory mandates. Their salaries are fixed by law and are not necessarily dependent on the number of hours worked or the specific tasks performed. On the other hand, laborers, especially those in the private sector, are compensated based on their employment contracts, which may include provisions for performance-based pay, hourly wages, or other variable considerations.
Finally, in as much as the distinctions between public officials and laborers may b e relevant herein, the Court clarifies that salaries of public officials and laborers may both be subject to garnishment. The determining factor is not simply the private nature of the funds but the absence of any law explicitly exempting such salaries from garnishment. The exemption is not even absolute for the salaries of laborers-only so much of their salaries, wages or earnings within the four months preceding the levy as are necessary for the support of his family shall be exempt from garnishment. Beyond this, there is no broad and all-encompassing exemption covering all salaries, whether of public officials or private employees. Thus, the garnishment of salaries is lawful when it does not fall within the enumerated exemptions under the law.”
ATTY. FRED L. BAGBAGEN vs. ANNA MAY F. PEREZ, G.R. No. 247980, February 17, 2025; Gaerlan, J.