The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that salaries of public officials can be garnished — or legally collected — by the courts to pay off their debts.
According to the high bench, these salaries are not exempt from garnishment under current laws and rules.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan dated 17 February 2025, the SC’s Third Division ruled that the salary of Atty. Fred L. Bagbagen, a Baguio City councilor, can be garnished to pay his debt to Anna May F. Perez.
Bagbagen was cleared of criminal charges for estafa; however, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) still found him civilly liable and ordered him to pay Perez P308,000.
The court allowed the garnishment of his salary, which was then withheld by the Philippine Veterans Bank.
In his attempt to stop the garnishment, Bagbagen argued 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 Court of Appeals disagreed, stating 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.
It 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.
An exception exists for manual laborers, whose wages are protected to ensure 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.”
The court added that only up to four months’ worth of wages are exempt, and any amount beyond that can still be collected to pay debts.
The high bench 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.”