Case Summary (G.R. No. 148132)
Petition and Legal Theory
Petitioner sought mandamus compelling the deputy sheriff to surrender the attached household effects. Her primary legal theories were: (1) Act No. 3531 does not apply to the attachment at issue and thus the sheriff’s demand for a bond remained effective; and (2) if Act No. 3531 is construed to apply retroactively to this attachment, it is unconstitutional as an ex post facto law contrary to the organic law.
Court’s Analysis — Nature of Act No. 3531
The Court treated Act No. 3531 as an enactment concerning remedies and modes of procedure. It held that procedural or remedial statutes are legitimate exercises of legislative power and do not create vested rights in a particular remedy. The Court observed that statutes altering remedy or procedure are valid unless they deprive a party of a substantial right or conflict with specific constitutional provisions.
Court’s Analysis — Ex Post Facto Argument
The Court rejected the contention that Act No. 3531 was an unconstitutional ex post facto law. It explained that the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws is a technical term applicable to penal statutes that retroactively impose punishment. Civil or remedial laws that operate retrospectively do not fall within that technical category. The Court cited Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa v. Municipality of Taal to support the position that the phrase “ex post facto laws” pertains to penal and criminal legislation, not civil procedural changes.
Court’s Analysis — Additional Ground: Sheriff’s Legal Duty
Beyond the constitutionality question, the Court identified a separate, dispositive reason to deny mandamus. Under section 442 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if a third party files a claim and a bond is not given, the sheriff is not under a legal duty to surrender the attached property; the statute leaves the sheriff free to hold the property or to surrender it. The bond requirement serves to protect the sheriff against liability, and the amendment in Act No. 3531 explicitly relieved the sheriff of the obligation to obtain such
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 148132)
Citation and Panel
- Reported at 54 Phil. 81, G.R. No. 32380, decided November 29, 1929.
- Decision authored by Street, J.
- Avancena, C. J., Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concurred.
Procedural Posture
- This is an original petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus filed in the Supreme Court by Dominga Concepcion.
- The petition seeks to command respondent Gregobio Garcia, in his capacity as special deputy sheriff in Civil Case No. 35867 in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, to surrender possession of certain personal property claimed by the petitioner as a third-party claimant in an attachment.
- The petition prays for general relief and costs.
- The case was submitted on the respondent’s answer.
Factual Background
- On August 9, 1929, the Government of the Philippine Islands instituted Civil Action No. 35867 in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila against Florencio Reyes, former chief of the stamp division in the Bureau of Posts, to recover P212,349.42, the alleged value of misappropriated stamps.
- In connection with that complaint, the Government obtained an attachment against the defendant, and respondent, as deputy sheriff, levied upon certain household effects as the defendant’s property.
- On September 20, 1929, Dominga Concepcion, the wife of Reyes, filed a written third-party claim with the sheriff asserting ownership of the attached household effects, pursuant to section 442 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The respondent sheriff demanded that the Government give bond to secure him against liability from the third-party claim; because the estimated value of the property was P5,500, the sheriff demanded an indemnity bond of P11,000 (double the estimated value).
- At the Attorney-General’s request, the period for giving the bond was extended until October 10, 1929.
Legislative Change at Issue (Act No. 3531 and Subsequent Reference)
- While the bond period remained running, the Legislature enacted a statute identified in the source as Act No. 3531, which added a proviso to both sections 442 and 451 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The proviso added the following language (as quoted in the source): "Provided, however, That when the plaintiff, or the person in whose favor the writ of attachment runs, is the Insular Government, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in case the sheriff or attaching officer is sued for damages as a result of the attachment, he shall be represented by1 the Attorney-General and if held liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the Insular Treasurer out of such funds as may be appropriated for the purpose."
- The Act was approved on September 28, 1929, and therefore was in effect on October 10, 1929, the expiration of th