Case Digest (G.R. No. 111190)
Facts:
Loreto D. de la Victoria v. Hon. Jose P. Burgos and Raul H. Sesbreno, G.R. No. 111190, June 27, 1995, the Supreme Court First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.
Private respondent Raul H. Sesbreno sued Assistant City Fiscals Bienvenido N. Mabanto, Jr., and Dario D. Rama, Jr., before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City for damages; after trial the RTC rendered judgment ordering the defendants to pay P11,000.00 to Sesbreno, and that decision became final and executory. On motion of Sesbreno the RTC ordered execution; a writ of execution issued on January 15, 1992.
On February 4, 1992 a notice of garnishment was served on petitioner Loreto D. de la Victoria, as City Fiscal of Mandaue City (and in his personal capacity as garnishee), directed to restrain disbursement of salary, RATA and other checks or monies due to Mabanto, Jr. On March 10, 1992 Sesbreno filed a motion in the RTC for examination of the garnishees. Meanwhile, the defendants' challenge to the execution was pending before the Court of Appeals; that petition was dismissed on May 25, 1992, removing the appellate obstacle to execution.
On November 4, 1992 the RTC ordered petitioner to submit a report showing the amount of the garnished salaries of Mabanto, Jr., within 15 days, citing Sec. 12, pars. (f) and (i), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On November 24, 1992 Sesbreno moved to cite petitioner for contempt for noncompliance. Petitioner, on January 19, 1993, moved to quash the notice of garnishment, asserting he had no funds of Mabanto, Jr., in his possession except salary and RATA checks which, he contended, remained public funds and were not yet the property of Mabanto, Jr., until physically delivered.
On March 9, 1993 the RTC denied both the motion to quash and the contempt-related motion and ordered compliance with the November 4 directive; the court found that the checks had been released by the Department of Justice through petitioner and that, upon service of the writ of garnishment, petitioner as custodian was obliged to hold them for the judgment creditor. The RTC also treated the checks as no longer government funds and presumed delivered to the payee under the last sentence of Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. On April 20, 1993 the RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, reiterating that a garnishee need not inquire into the validity of execution orders.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition (for review on certiorari) challenging the RT...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether a check still in the hands of the maker or the maker’s authorized representative is owned by the payee prior to physical delivery.
- Whether the salary check of a government official or employee funded with public funds is subject...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)