While the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) can be sued, its liability for the obligations of a privatized corporation (PNEI) is limited to the assets of that corporation it holds in its capacity as a conservator. APT's own funds, being public funds, are not subject to garnishment or execution to satisfy such obligations, even if a judgment holds APT jointly and solidarily liable with the privatized entity, as such liability only extends to the assets taken over from the privatized firm.

Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI) faced financial difficulties, leading to its ownership transfer to the National Investment Development Corporation (NIDC), a PNB subsidiary, after foreclosure. PNEI was later sequestered by the PCGG and its management transferred to the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) for eventual sale. Due to its deteriorating financial condition, PNEI petitioned for suspension of payments and implemented a retrenchment program, which resulted in numerous labor complaints for unpaid benefits and separation pay filed by its employees against PNEI and APT.

• Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI) was transferred to National Investment Development Corporation (NIDC) after foreclosure, then sequestered by PCGG, and later its management and disposition were taken over by Asset Privatization Trust (APT).
• PNEI, facing financial decline, retrenched around 500 employees in late 1992 and early 1993, leading to multiple labor complaints.
• In NLRC NCR Case No. 00-08-05380-93 (PEA-PTGWO vs. PNEI & APT), Labor Arbiter Eduardo Carpio held PNEI and APT jointly and solidarily liable for 13th month pay, cash gift, medicine allowance, uniform allowance, separation pay, and attorney's fees. This decision became final, and a writ of execution was issued. A notice of garnishment was served on Land Bank for APT funds.
• In NLRC-NCR-00-05-03587-93 (PACEU vs. PNEI, APT & DOTC), Labor Arbiter Raul Aquino ordered PNEI to pay various claims. This decision also became final, and a writ of execution was issued. PNEI properties were levied and sold. APT's motion to quash execution was denied.
• In NLRC CASE NO. SUB-RAB-01-12-7-02255-93 (Antonio Cabugao vs. PNEI & APT), a decision ordered PNEI to pay the complainant. This decision became final, and a writ of execution was issued.
• APT, representing the Republic, filed a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court, arguing its funds could not be garnished, after attempts were made to satisfy the judgment in NLRC Case No. 00-08-05380-93 from APT funds.

• The Asset Privatization Trust (APT), being an agency or instrumentality of the Republic of the Philippines, is immune from suit.
• Even if suable, APT's funds are public funds and cannot be subject to garnishment or execution to satisfy judgments.
• The joint and solidary liability decreed against APT should not extend beyond the assets of PNEI that APT holds or has acquired.
• APT's role is merely that of a conservator of assets identified for privatization, and its liability should be co-extensive with the amount of assets taken over from the privatized firm (PNEI).

• The decisions of the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC holding PNEI and APT liable have gained finality, entitling the prevailing parties (employees/unions) to writs of execution as a matter of right.
• APT was duly impleaded, participated in the proceedings (e.g., by filing a position paper in one case), and was found jointly and solidarily liable in one of the final judgments.
• The writs of execution and notices of garnishment were lawfully issued to satisfy the final and executory judgments.

• Whether or not the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) can be held liable for the obligations of Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI).
• Whether or not the funds of APT, a government instrumentality, can be subject to garnishment to satisfy the monetary awards in favor of PNEI employees.

• The petition is GRANTED. The notice of garnishment directed against the funds of APT is NULLIFIED, and the temporary restraining order is made PERMANENT.
• APT, created by Proclamation No. 50, can "sue and be sued," thus waiving state immunity from suit. However, suability does not equate to liability, nor does it mean consent to unrestrained execution against its assets.
• Government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy judgments, based on public policy considerations and the requirement for a corresponding appropriation as required by law.
• The joint and solidary liability of APT (as decreed in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-08-05380-93) must be construed as limited to the assets APT has held in or acquired from PNEI. APT's inclusion as a respondent was a consequence of its role as a conservator of PNEI's assets.
• APT's liability is co-extensive with the amount of assets taken over from PNEI. PNEI's assets remain subject to execution by its judgment creditors. Levy and auction sale of PNEI property to satisfy judgments in favor of PNEI employees can be sustained.

• State Immunity from Suit — The State may not be sued without its consent. This doctrine was invoked by APT. The Court reiterated that this is not absolute and consent can be express (through general or special law) or implied (when the State commences litigation or enters into a contract). Proclamation No. 50, creating APT, expressly provides that APT can "sue and be sued," constituting express consent.
• Suability vs. Liability — The Court explained that the State's waiver of immunity to be sued does not automatically mean it concedes liability. Suability merely gives the other party an opportunity to prove if the State has a liability.
• Non-Garnishability of Public Funds — Government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy judgments. This is based on public policy considerations, as disbursements of public funds must be covered by corresponding appropriations, and public services cannot be paralyzed by diversion of such funds. This doctrine was applied to protect APT's own funds from garnishment.
• Finality of Judgment and Right to Execution — Once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution as a matter of right, it being the fruit and end of the suit. While acknowledged, this right was limited in its application against APT's own funds due to the doctrine of non-garnishability of public funds.
• Conservatorship Liability — The Court implicitly applied a principle that an entity acting as a conservator of assets (like APT for PNEI) is liable for the obligations of the entity whose assets it conserves only to the extent of those assets. APT's liability for PNEI's debts was deemed co-extensive with the PNEI assets it held.

• "Once a judgment becomes final, it is a matter of right for the prevailing party to be entitled to a writ of execution, so described as the fruit and end of the suit."
• "The State may not be sued without its consent; its clear import then is that the State may at times be sued. The States' consent may be given either expressly or impliedly."
• "When the State gives its consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily consent to an unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when the State waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State has a liability."
• "The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general law or special law, it may limit claimant's action 'only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution' and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy."

• Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693 — Referenced for the explanation of the doctrine of state immunity, its exceptions (express or implied consent), and the distinction that suability does not mean absolute liability or consent to execution against state funds.
• Republic vs. Villasor — Cited to support the principle that government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy judgments, emphasizing that the power of courts ends when judgment is rendered against the State, and execution requires a corresponding appropriation.
• Abbott vs. NLRC, 145 SCRA 206; Balintawak Construction Supply Corporation vs. Valenzuela, 124 SCRA 331; Gonzales vs. Sayo, 122 SCRA 607; Clemente-De Guzman vs. Reyes, 114 SCRA 596; Republic vs. Reyes, 71 SCRA 450; Carreon vs. Buissan, 70 SCRA 57 — Collectively cited for the principle that once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled to a writ of execution.
• Garcia vs. Echiverri, 132 SCRA 631 — Cited to describe execution as the fruit and end of the suit.
• Republic of the Philippines, represented by Asset Privatization Trust vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 244 SCRA 564; North Davao Mining Corporation and Asset Privatization Trust vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 112546, 13 March 1996 — Cited as related jurisprudence where APT's liability in connection with privatized corporations was discussed, supporting the conclusion that PNEI's assets (held by APT) can be subject to execution.

• Proclamation No. 50, Section 12 (7) (creating APT) — Cited to show that APT is expressly authorized to "sue and be sued," which constitutes a waiver of state immunity from suit for APT.
• Proclamation No. 50, Section 9, Article III — Cited for APT's mandate to "take title to and possession of, conserve, provisionally manage and dispose of assets" identified for privatization, highlighting APT's role as a conservator.
• Constitution, Article XVI, Section 3 ("The State may not be sued without its consent.") — Cited as the basis for the doctrine of state immunity.
• Act No. 3083 — Mentioned as the general law waiving the immunity of the state from suit for money claims involving liability arising from contract.