Case Digest (G.R. No. 60887)
Facts:
Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Hon. Jose R. Ramolete, et al., G.R. No. L-60887, November 13, 1991, the Supreme Court First Division, Feliciano, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. (Perla), an insurer, sought certiorari to annul several trial-court orders directing garnishment of a third‑party liability insurance policy it had issued in favor of judgment debtor Nelia Enriquez: the Order of 6 August 1979 directing the Provincial Sheriff to garnish the policy, the 24 October 1979 denial of Perla’s motion for reconsideration, and the 8 April 1980 Order for issuance of an alias writ of garnishment.On 1 June 1976 a Cimarron PUJ registered in the name of Nelia Enriquez and driven by Cosme (Gosme) Casas collided with a private jeep driven by the late Calixto Palmes; Calixto died and a child, Adeudatus Borbon, was injured. On 25 June 1976 Primitiva Y. Palmes (widow of Calixto) and Honorato Borbon, Sr. filed suit in the Court of First Instance (Branch 3, Cebu) against Casas and Enriquez for various damages. The court excluded Borbon’s distinct claim for refiling in the proper inferior court. On 4 April 1977 the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Primitiva Palmes awarding moral, compensatory, exemplary and other damages; that judgment became final and executory, and a writ of execution issued but was returned unsatisfied.
During examination of the judgment debtor on 23 July 1979 Enriquez testified under oath that the Cimarron PUJ was covered by a third‑party liability policy issued by Perla. Thereafter, on 31 July 1979 Palmes moved for garnishment of that insurance policy. On 6 August 1979 respondent Judge Jose R. Ramolete ordered the Provincial Sheriff to garnish the policy. Perla moved for reconsideration and to quash the writ, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction because it was not a party and had not been summoned, and contending that a separate action was required under the rule invoked in Economic Insurance Co., Inc. v. Torres. The trial court denied Perla’s motion (order of 24 October 1979) and later approved issuance of an alias writ of garnishment (8 April 1980).
Perla filed the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court on 25 June 1982 alleging grave abuse of discretion in the garnishment orders; the Court noted the petition ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition timely filed and procedurally proper?
- Did the trial court validly acquire jurisdiction over the insurer Perla by service of the writ of garnishment so as to bind it despite Perla not being originally impleaded?
- Could the third‑party liability insurance policy issued by Perla be garnished to satisfy the judgment against Nelia Enriquez, or was a separate action against the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)