Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3905)
Facts:
Gonzalo P. Nava, et al. v. Hon. Ramon R. San Jose, et al., G.R. No. L-3905. October 31, 1951, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paras, C.J., writing for the Court.On April 27, 1940, Standard Investment of the Philippines sued Toribio Teodoro in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila for recovery of P10,000 (Civil Case No. 56897). In his October 30, 1940 answer, Teodoro filed a third-party complaint against Gonzalo P. Nava claiming the same sum. The CFI, in a decision dated October 30, 1941, dismissed Teodoro’s claim against Nava.
Teodoro appealed; the Court of Appeals on December 24, 1943 reversed the CFI and ordered Nava to pay Teodoro P10,000. Nava (and Standard Investment) sought review by the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-1270), which dismissed the petition for certiorari on March 9, 1949; a motion for reconsideration filed March 29, 1949 was denied April 18, 1949, rendering the appellate decision final.
On January 31, 1950 Teodoro moved in the CFI for execution of his judgment against Nava; the CFI granted the motion the same day and a writ of garnishment was served on the Philippine Bank of Commerce. The bank returned that Nava had mortgaged a residential lot to secure an overdraft line not to exceed P26,000, of which P19,680.47 had been used as of January 31, 1950, leaving an unused balance of P6,319.53. Teodoro moved to have the bank deliver that unused balance to the sheriff; the bank opposed, contending the unused balance was not a credit subject to garnishment. Nava also opposed, asserting in addition that his P10,000 obligation was a pre‑war obligation protected by the Moratorium Law, Republic Act No. 342.
On June 12, 1950 the CFI (Judge Ramon R. San Jose) ordered the bank to deliver P6,319.53 to the sheriff; on June 14, 1950 the CFI held Nava’s obligation not covered by the Moratorium Law. Failing to obtain reconsideration, Nava and the Philippine Bank of Commerce filed an original petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking annulment of (a) the CFI’s January 31,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner Nava waive the right to invoke the Moratorium Law (Republic Act No. 342) as a defense to execution?
- Was Nava’s obligation to pay P10,000 a pre‑war obligation covered by the Moratorium Law (Republic Act No. 342)?
- Is the unused balance of Nava’s overdraft account (P6,319.53) a “credit” of the defendant subject to garnishment under Sections 7 and 8 of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)