Dear PAO,

I am a construction worker and my brother is a public official. Tino is collecting a certain amount of money from us. He said that he will initiate the appropriate civil case against us and will ask for the garnishment of our salaries to satisfy the amount due. My brother told me not to worry because his salary and my wages cannot be garnished. He claimed that his salary is considered public funds and that mine is also exempt under a specific provision of the New Civil Code of the Philippines. Is this correct?

Masferny

Dear Masferny,

The general rule is that government funds cannot be seized by virtue of writs of execution or garnishment (Republic of the Philippines v. Espina and Madarang Co. and Makar Agricultural Corp., GR 226138. March 23, 2022, Ponente: Associate Justice Mario Lopez). However, salaries of public officials or any individual are not exempt. These may be garnished, subject to exemptions. One exemption is found under Section 13 (i), Rule 39 of the 2019 Amended Rules of Court, which provides that:

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the following property, and no other, shall be exempt from execution: xxx So much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the judgment obligor for his personal services within the four months preceding the levy as are necessary for the support of his family.”

Another exemption is found in Article 1708 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which states that:

“The laborer’s wage shall not be subject to execution or attachment, except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and medical attendance.”

From the foregoing, there is no law exempting the salaries of public officials from garnishment, and the exemption of a laborer’s wage is not absolute. The distinction lies in the different treatment between employment in the government and the private sector. These differences were enumerated in the case Bagbagen v. Perez, GR 274980, Feb. 17, 2025, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, stated that:

“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 manner in 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 be relevant herein, the Court clarifies that the salaries of public officials and laborers may both 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, garnishment of salaries is lawful when it does not fall within the enumerated exemptions under the law.”

Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, salaries of both public officials and laborers may be garnished. The difference is that the latter is subject to certain exemptions as provided in Section 13 (i), Rule 39 in the Amended Rules of Court and Article 1708 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines are not absolute. To be specific, only the portion of the salaries/wages within the four months preceding the levy which is necessary for the support of the family shall be exempt and the rest may be garnished. It may also be garnished for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and medical attendance. Thus, your brother’s statement is incorrect.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected].