PACITA SY TORRES, vs. FROILAN S. CABLING, 1997-07-11 | A.M. No.

P-
97-1249, DAVIDE, JR., J.

Facts:
Pacita Torres charged Froilan Cabling with abuse of authority and grave abuse
of discretion in the implementation of the writ for the execution of the balance of
P6,000 of her judgment debt. Torres claimed that the respondent carted away
over her vigorous protest and objection with regard to the price of her personal
properties. Despite the third-party claims, the Deputy Sheriff Cabling sold all the
properties, whose aggregate value is P19,000, for only P5,750 at a public auction
without giving Pacita Torres any copy of the plaintiff's indemnity bond as
required by the Rules of Court.

On the other hand, Sheriff Cabling admitted that he levied the properties
pursuant to a Writ of Execution. He, however, claimed that the complainant
neither objected to the levy nor offered to pay the judgment debt in cash. After
the levy of the subject properties, he issued and left a Notice of Levy and Sheriff's
Sale to the party concerned.

Issue:
Did Deputy Sheriff Cabling violate Section 18 (b and d), Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court?

Ruling:
Yes. The posting of the notice is to let the public know of the sale to the
end that the best price or a better bid may be made possible to minimize
prejudice to the judgment debtor. The notice to the judgment debtor is intended
to give him the opportunity to prevent the sale by paying the judgment debt
sought to be enforced and the costs which may have been incurred pursuant to
Section 20 of Rule 39. Or, at the very least, it affords him a chance to be present
at the auction sale and help ensure a regular bidding or prevent the rigging of
the process.

The liability of the respondent lies not in immediately levying on the

personal property, but in the proceedings relative to the sale of the levied
personal property. (Section 15 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court allows immediate
levy on execution of personal property. A sheriff is not required to give the
judgment debtor some time to raise cash. If time be given, the property may be
placed in danger of being lost or absconded. In the instant case, we doubt that
the complainant was ready with cold cash to pay the judgment debt.)

Therefore, such non-compliance, coupled with the violation of Section 23

of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, amounted to abuse of authority.
 PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., vs. HON. JOSE R. RAMOLETE,
1991-11-13 | G.R. No. L-60887, FELICIANO, J.:

Facts:
A Cimarron PUJ owned by Nelia Enriquez, travelling from Cebu City to
Danao City. The Cimarron PUJ collided with a private jeep owned by the late
Calixto Palmes who was then driving the private jeep. Calixto Palmes died due
to a crushed chest.

Private respondents filed a complaint against Cosme and Nelia before the
then Cebu CFI claiming for damages.

The CFI ruled in favor of Primitiva, ordering common carrier Nelia to pay
her damages and attorney’s fees. The judgment of the trial court became final
and executory and a writ of execution was issued, which however, returned
unsatisfied, prompting the court to summon and examine Nelia. She declared
that the Cimarron PUJ was covered by a third-party liability insurance policy
issued by petitioner Perla.

Palmes then filed a motion for garnishment praying that an order of

garnishment be issued against the insurance policy issued by petitioner in favor
of the judgment debtor. Respondent Judge then issued an Order directing the
Provincial Sheriff or his deputy to garnish the third-party liability insurance
policy. An Order for issuance of an alias writ of garnishment was subsequently
issued.

Issue:
Can the insurance policy be subject to garnishment?

Ruling:
Yes. Garnishment is a kind of attachment for reaching any property or
credits pertaining or payable to a judgment debtor. In legal contemplation, it is
a forced novation by the substitution of creditors: the judgment debtor, who is
the original creditor of the garnishee is, through service of the writ of
garnishment, substituted by the judgment creditor who thereby becomes
creditor of the garnishee.

In order that the trial court may validly acquire jurisdiction to bind the
person of the garnishee, it is not necessary that summons be served upon him.
The garnishee need not be impleaded as a party to the case. All that is necessary
for the trial court lawfully to bind the person of the garnishee or any person who
has in his possession credits belonging to the judgment debtor is service upon
him of the writ of garnishment.
 In the present case, there can be no doubt, therefore, that the trial court
actually acquired jurisdiction over petitioner Perla when it was served with the
writ of garnishment of the third-party liability insurance policy it had issued in
favor of judgment debtor Nelia Enriquez. Perla cannot successfully evade liability
thereon by such a contention.

Every interest which the judgment debtor may have in property may be
subjected to execution. In the instant case, the judgment debtor Nelia Enriquez
clearly had an interest in the proceeds of the third-party liability insurance
contract. In a third-party liability insurance contract, the insurer assumes the
obligation of paying the injured third party to whom the insured is liable. The
insurer becomes liable as soon as the liability of the insured to the injured third
person attaches.