SC: Salaries of public officials may be garnished
The salaries of public officials may be garnished or legally collected to pay off their monetary obligations, the Supreme Court (SC) said.
In a 9-page decision, the SC Third Division ruled that the salary of a Baguio city councilor can be garnished to pay his debt to another individual.
'The Court deems it 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 laws and rules,' it said.
According to the court, the councilor was cleared of estafa charges but the regional trial court found him civilly liable and ordered him to pay the individual P308,000. The RTC allowed the garnishment of his salary.
For his part, the councilor argued that his salary should not be collected as the funds were still considered government property until spent.
However, both the regional trial court and the Court of Appeals stated that once a public official's salary is deposited into their personal bank account, it is no longer considered public funds.
The SC affirmed the ruling.
It said that under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, salaries can be garnished to settle debts. However, it said that an exception exists for manual laborers under Article 1708 of the Civil Code.
'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 their family shall be exempt from garnishment,' it said.
The decision, penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, was promulgated in February and made public in July. –NB, GMA Integrated News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
2 days ago
- GMA Network
SC: Salaries of public officials may be garnished
'The Court deems it 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 laws and rules,' it said. The salaries of public officials may be garnished or legally collected to pay off their monetary obligations, the Supreme Court (SC) said. In a 9-page decision, the SC Third Division ruled that the salary of a Baguio city councilor can be garnished to pay his debt to another individual. 'The Court deems it 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 laws and rules,' it said. According to the court, the councilor was cleared of estafa charges but the regional trial court found him civilly liable and ordered him to pay the individual P308,000. The RTC allowed the garnishment of his salary. For his part, the councilor argued that his salary should not be collected as the funds were still considered government property until spent. However, both the regional trial court and the Court of Appeals stated that once a public official's salary is deposited into their personal bank account, it is no longer considered public funds. The SC affirmed the ruling. It said that under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, salaries can be garnished to settle debts. However, it said that an exception exists for manual laborers under Article 1708 of the Civil Code. '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 their family shall be exempt from garnishment,' it said. The decision, penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, was promulgated in February and made public in July. –NB, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
3 days ago
- GMA Network
Comelec formally proclaims Eric Yap as Benguet solon
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has formally proclaimed Eric Yap as representative of the lone district of Benguet. The Benguet Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) reconvened on Wednesday to proclaim Yap as the winning congressional candidate of the lone district for the recent midterm elections after the Comelec Second Division issued a certificate of finality and entry of judgment on a disqualification petition filed against the solon. The poll body division, in its ruling, dismissed the petition after the Comelec did not receive a motion for reconsideration (MR) questioning an earlier ruling that rejected an October 2024 petition filed by certain Franklin Tino on the grounds of material misrepresentation due to questions on Yap's citizenship. No temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Supreme Court (SC) was also issued during the five-day reglementary period of the decision. 'The records show that the Petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration and there being no restraining order issued by the Supreme Court (SC) within five days from receipt of the Resolution that would preclude the aforementioned Resolution of this Commission (Second Division) from being final and executory,' the certificate of finality reads. 'In view of the foregoing, the resolution of the Commission (Second Division) promulgated on 26 June 2025 is hereby declared immediately executory under the Comelec Rules of Procedure, and Comelec Resolution No. 11046,' it added. The Comelec division last week lifted the suspension of the proclamation of Yap following the dismissal of a disqualification petition against his candidacy. Tino, in his petition, alleged that Yap committed material misrepresentation when he filed his certificate of candidacy for Benguet representative when he is not a natural-born Filipino citizen. He also accused Yap of falsifying his birth certificate and Philippine passport. Yap has denied the accusations. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
GMA Network
4 days ago
- GMA Network
Comelec issues certificate of finality for Yap's proclamation as Benguet rep
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) Second Division has issued a certificate of finality and entry of judgment on a disqualification petition against Eric Yap, clearing the way for his proclamation as the duly-elected representative of the lone district of Benguet. This developed after the poll body did not receive within its five-day deadline a motion for reconsideration (MR) on an earlier ruling that dismissed an October 2024 petition filed by petitioner Franklin Tino. The dismissed petition sought to disqualify Yap from the May 2025 midterm elections on the grounds of material misrepresentation due to questions on his citizenship. Further, no temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Supreme Court (SC) was issued during the five-day reglementary period. "The records show that the Petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration and there being no restraining order issued by the Supreme Court (SC) within five days from receipt of the Resolution that would preclude the aforementioned Resolution of this Commission (Second Division) from being final and executory," the certificate of finality read. "In view of the foregoing, the resolution of the Commission (Second Division) promulgated on 26 June 2025 is hereby declared immediately executory under the Comelec Rules of Procedure, and Comelec Resolution No. 11046," it added. Last week, the poll body division lifted the suspension of Yap's proclamation following the dismissal of a disqualification petition against his candidacy. Tino, in his petition, alleged that Yap committed material misrepresentation when he filed his certificate of candidacy (COC) for Benguet representative when he is not a natural-born Filipino citizen. He also accused Yap of falsifying his birth certificate and Philippine passport. For his part, Yap denied the allegations as "false, malicious, and unfounded." In its ruling which lifted the suspension, the Comelec Second Division said Tino failed to present any document, testimony, or circumstantial evidence that would support his claim against Yap. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
