The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified that the salaries of public officials can be garnished—or legally collected—by the courts to pay off their debts, adding that these salaries are not exempt from garnishment under current laws and rules.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan and made public July 4, the SC’s Third Division ruled that the salary of Atty. Fred Bagbagen, a Baguio City councilor, can be garnished to pay his debt to Anna May Perez.
Bagbagen was cleared of criminal charges for estafa (fraud), but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) still found him civilly liable and ordered him to pay Perez P308,000. The RTC allowed the garnishment of his salary, which was then withheld by the Philippine Veterans Bank.
Bagbagen attempted to stop the garnishment, arguing that his salaries should not be collected due to public policy reasons, and that these funds were still considered government property until spent.
But the RTC and CA disagreed. They held that once a public official’s salary is deposited in their personal bank account, it is no longer considered government money.
The SC affirmed this ruling, and emphasized that there is no law exempting public officials’ salaries from garnishment.
Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, salaries – whether in the public or private sector – can be garnished to settle debts, the SC Office of the Spokesperson said in a press release.
An exception exists for manual laborers, whose wages are protected to ensure that they can still support their families. The SC explained that these workers “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.”
However, only up to four months’ worth of wages are exempt, the SC said. “Any amount beyond that can still be collected to pay debts.”
The SC also noted that public officials are held to stricter standards when it comes to their income and financial obligations due to “their constitutional role as custodians of public trust.” ||
