Facts:

This case, titled Jose Avendano and Marta Avendano vs. The Hon. Federico C. Alikpala, the Sheriff of Manila, The Manila Railroad and Luzviminda Parungao San Pedro, arose from a legal dispute involving the garnishment of wages. The events trace back to a complaint filed by Luzviminda Parungao San Pedro with the Municipal Court of Manila (Civ. Case No. 95957) against the petitioners, Jose Avendano and Marta Avendano, a married couple. On November 30, 1960, the Municipal Court ordered the couple to pay San Pedro P2,000, plus 12% interest, attorney's fees of P200, and P200 for actual damages. This decision was later appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 50273), where the couple was declared in default for failing to submit an answer and a third-party complaint. The evidence for San Pedro was then received by the Clerk of Court.

The Court of First Instance ruled that while Marta Avendano signed promissory notes, these loans did not involve Jose Avendan

...

Facts:

Background and Initiation of the Case

• Respondent Luzviminda Parungao San Pedro filed a complaint with the Municipal Court of Manila (Civ. Case No. 95957) against petitioners Jose Avendano and Marta Avendano, demanding payment of P2,000.00 plus 12% interest from November 30, 1960, P200.00 as attorney's fees, additional P200.00 for actual damages, and the costs of the suit.
• The decision in the Municipal Court was appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 50273), where, due to petitioners’ failure to reproduce their Answer and their third-party complaint, both were declared in default.
• The evidence of respondent San Pedro was admitted by the Clerk of Court as commissioner, leading to a ruling that only defendant Marta Avendano, whose promissory notes were signed solo, be held liable for the debt because there was no showing that the loans were made with the husband’s knowledge and consent.

Judgment and Execution

• The respondent Judge rendered judgment sentencing Marta Avendano to pay the plaintiff P2,000.00 with 6% interest per annum (from March 6, 1962, the complaint’s filing date) until full payment, plus attorney’s fees and costs.
• On the finality of the judgment, respondent San Pedro prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Execution. This writ was granted on October 30, 1962, directing seizure on the "goods and chattels of Marta Avendano."

Garnishment Order and Subsequent Developments

• Relying on the Writ of Execution, the respondent Sheriff of Manila issued a Writ of Garnishment against petitioner Marta Avendano’s salaries earned from her employment at the Manila Railroad Company.
• It was noted that from November 15, 1962 until April 1963, Marta Avendano’s salaries had been diverted (garnished) by the Railroad Company.
• Marta Avendano became aware of the garnishment only on November 15, 1962, prompting petitioners to move for the setting aside of the default order and file a petition with the Court to invalidate the garnishment on several grounds.

Grounds Presented by Petitioners

• The petitioners argued that the Writ of Execution was directed towards the goods and chattels of Marta Avendano alone, whereas the garnished salary constituted conjugal property not covered by the said writ.
• They contended that garnishment of salaries is not sanctioned by law due to prohibitions on such action based on public policy considerations.
• They further argued that even if the salary were subject to garnishment, it should only be effective for amounts in excess of what is necessary for the support of the petitioner and her family.

Lower Court Rulings and Actions

• Both the petition to have the writ of garnishment declared invalid and the subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied by the respondent Judge.
• Petitioners then advanced the case to the Supreme Court via proceedings for Certiorari and Mandamus, seeking to invalidate the garnishment order and alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack/excess of jurisdiction in the actions of the lower courts and the Sheriff.
• On April 24, 1963, the Supreme Court issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction directing the respondent Sheriff and the Manila Railroad Company to refrain from enforcing the garnishment pending further orders.

Evidence on the Exempt Status of the Salary

• It was established by unrebutted proofs that Marta Avendano’s monthly salary was only P200.00, with her take-home pay (after legal deductions) amounting to P151.50.
• An annexed summary (Annex K-1) indicated that her contribution for the family’s maintenance should be at least P220.00 per month, emphasizing that her earnings were insufficient for her own support and that of her family.
• Under the Revised Rules of Court (Sec. 12, Rule 39), the portion of a debtor’s earnings necessary for the support of his or her family is exempt from execution, rendering the garnished salary legally protected.

Issue:

Legality of the Garnishment

• Whether the garnishment of petitioner Marta Avendano’s salary is valid, given that her earnings, after deductions, are insufficient to meet the necessary support requirements of her family.
• Whether the wage garnishment, which affects conjugal property rights since the original writ was intended for goods and chattels, goes beyond the legal limits imposed by execution rules.

Jurisdiction and Abuse of Discretion

• Whether the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petition to declare the garnishment order invalid and in rejecting the motion for reconsideration.
• Whether the Sheriff, in suing out the garnishment order based solely on a writ of execution directed at goods, exceeded his jurisdiction by applying it to salary payments.

Application of Public Policy and Statutory Exemptions

• Whether garnishment of salaries is inherently contrary to public policy as a matter of law, especially when such wages are needed for the support of the debtor’s family.
• Whether the garnishment should only be effective when the garnished amount is in excess of what is necessary for family support, thereby validating or invalidating the measure taken in this particular case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)