G.R. No.
111190 June 27, 1995
LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA, as City Fiscal of Mandaue City and in his personal
capacity as garnishee,petitioner,
vs.
HON. JOSE P. BURGOS, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. XVII, Cebu City, and RAUL H.
SESBREÑO,respondents.
FACTS:
On 4 February 1992 a notice of garnishment was served on petitioner Loreto D. de la
Victoria as City Fiscal of Mandaue City where defendant Mabanto, Jr., was then detailed.
The notice directed petitioner not to disburse, transfer, release or convey to any other
person except to the deputy sheriff concerned the salary checks or other checks, monies,
or cash due or belonging to Mabanto, Jr., under penalty of law. On 10 March 1992
1
private respondent filed a motion before the trial court for examination of the garnishees.
Mandaue City where defendant Mabanto, Jr., was then detailed. The notice directed
petitioner not to disburse, transfer, release or convey to any other person except to the
deputy sheriff concerned the salary checks or other checks, monies, or cash due or
belonging to Mabanto, Jr., under penalty of law. On 10 March 1992 private respondent
1
filed a motion before the trial court for examination of the garnishees.
On 25 May 1992 the petition pending before the Court of Appeals was dismissed. Thus
the trial court, finding no more legal obstacle to act on the motion for examination of the
garnishees, directed petitioner on 4 November 1992 to submit his report showing the
amount of the garnished salaries of Mabanto, Jr., within fifteen (15) days from
receipt taking into consideration the provisions of Sec. 12, pars. (f) and (i), Rule 39 of the
2
Rules of Court.
On 24 November 1992 private respondent filed a motion to require petitioner to explain
why he should not be cited in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order of 4
November 1992.
On the other hand, on 19 January 1993 petitioner moved to quash the notice of
garnishment claiming that he was not in possession of any money, funds, credit, property
or anything of value belonging to Mabanto, Jr., except his salary and RATA checks, but
that said checks were not yet properties of Mabanto, Jr., until delivered to him. He further
claimed that, as such, they were still public funds which could not be subject to
garnishment.
On 20 April 1993 the motion for reconsideration was denied. The trial court explained that
it was not the duty of the garnishee to inquire or judge for himself whether the issuance of
the order of execution, writ of execution and notice of garnishment was justified. His only
duty was to turn over the garnished checks to the trial court which issued the order of
execution. 5
ISSUE:
whether a check still in the hands of the maker or its duly authorized representative is
owned by the payee before physical delivery to the latte
RULING:
n denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the trial court expressed the additional
ratiocination that it was not the duty of the garnishee to inquire or judge for himself
whether the issuance of the order of execution, the writ of execution, and the notice of
garnishment was justified, citing our ruling in Philippine Commercial Industrial Bank v.
Court of Appeals. Our precise ruling in that case was that "[I]t is not incumbent upon the
11
garnishee to inquire or to judge for itself whether or not the order for the advance
execution of a judgment is valid." But that is invoking only the general rule. We have also
established therein the compelling reasons, as exceptions thereto, which were not taken
into account by the trial court, e.g., a defect on the face of the writ or actual knowledge by
the garnishee of lack of entitlement on the part of the garnisher. It is worth to note that the
ruling referred to the validity of advance execution of judgments, but a careful scrutiny of
that case and similar cases reveals that it was applicable to a notice of garnishment as
well. In the case at bench, it was incumbent upon petitioner to inquire into the validity of
the notice of garnishment as he had actual knowledge of the non-entitlement of private
respondent to the checks in question. Consequently, we find no difficulty concluding that
the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the notice of garnishment concerning the
salary checks of Mabanto, Jr., in the possession of petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The orders of 9 March 1993 and 20 April 1993
of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Br. 17, subject of the petition are SET ASIDE.
The notice of garnishment served on petitioner dated 3 February 1992 is ordered
DISCHARGED.
SO ORDERED.
