Case Digest (G.R. No. 84526)
Facts:
Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank and Jose Henares v. The Hon. Court of Appeals and Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 84526, January 28, 1991, Supreme Court Second Division, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.
The underlying controversy began with an action before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in which a group of laborers obtained a final judgment against Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation (MMIC) for backwages totaling P205,853.00. On April 26, 1976 the NLRC issued a writ of execution directing the Deputy Sheriff of Negros Occidental, Damian Rojas, to enforce the judgment, including collection from the respondent's cash deposits if necessary.
On April 29, 1976 the deputy sheriff prepared and served Notices of Garnishment on six banks in Bacolod City, one being Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank (PCIB). That same day MMIC’s house counsel, Atty. Rexes V. Alejano, alerted PCIB’s manager, petitioner Jose Henares, first verbally and later by formal letter, to withhold release of MMIC’s deposits. Nevertheless the deputy sheriff personally presented the Notice of Garnishment and attached writ to Henares and demanded release under threat of contempt. After consulting the Acting Provincial Sheriff and the bank’s legal counsel and being informed there was no restraining order, Henares issued a debit memo and a manager’s check for P37,466.18—the balance of MMIC’s account—which the deputy sheriff later encashed.
MMIC filed suit on July 6, 1976 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch II, alleging unlawful garnishment, disclosure and release of its deposit and seeking restoration of the P37,466.18. The petitioners and the deputy sheriff denied liability and filed counterclaims; a third-party complaint against the laborers was dismissed for lack of service. After pre-trial on January 23, 1982, the RTC rendered judgment on January 15, 1985 in favor of MMIC ordering defendants to pay P37,466.18 with 12% interest from April 29, 1976, plus P10,000 attorney’s fees and double costs.
On appeal the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a decision dated February 26, 1988 reversing the RTC judgment. The CA later reconsidered and, in a resolution dated June 27, 1988, set aside its February 26 decision and instead affirmed the RTC j...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the petitioners have a legal basis in releasing the garnished deposit of the private respondent to the deputy sheriff?
- Did the petitioners violate Republic Act No. 1405 (Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act) by allowing the sheriff to garnish the private re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)