Loreto R. de La Victoria v. Hon. Jose P. Burgos G.R. No. 111190 - June 27, 1995 - Bellosillo, J Facts

 

Loreto R. De La Victoria v. Hon. Jose P. Burgos G.R. No. 111190| June 27, 1995 | Bellosillo, J Facts 1.

2.

3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

Raul H. Sesbreno filed a Complaint for Damages against Assistant City Fiscals Bienvenido N. Mabanto Jr. And Dario D. Rama, Jr. Later, judgement was rendered ordering the fiscals to pay P11,000 to herein respondent. A notice of garnishment wa was s given to p petitioner etitioner as City Fiscal of Mand Mandaue aue City where Fiscal Mabanto worked. The notice directed petitioner not to give the salary checks of Mabanto to any other person except the deputy sheriff Trial court later ordered petitioner to submit submit a report report showing the amount of the garnished salaries of Mabanto. Petitioner did not comply Respondent filed a motion to require petitioner to explain why he should not be cited for contempt for his refusal to comply with the order Petitioner contended that the salary checks of Mabanto were not yet the latter’s properties propert ies because they were not yet delivered to him. Hence, the said checks still form f orm part of public funds and cannot be subjected to garnishment. Trial court ordered petitioner to immediately comply with its earlier order(Submission of Report). Through Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, it contended that there was no reason for petitioner to hold on to the checks since they were presumed delivered to the payee(Mabanto) and was thus his property. Trial court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition  

Issue 1. 2.

Whether or not, a check still in hands of the maker or its authorized representative is already owned by the payee even before the physical delivery of the check. Whether or not, the salary check of a government employee funded by public funds be subjected to garnishment

Ruling 1.

No. Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law states that “Where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intention intent ion delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved” . Proof to the contrary is that the checks were still with petitioner so this implies that there was no delivery yet to Mabanto and hence the checks did not belong to him yet 2. No. Public funds cannot be subject to Garnishment in order to satisfy a judgement as it is against public policy to do so as held in the case of Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego. Diego . There the court stated that “Functions “Functions and public services rendered by the state cannot be allowed to be  paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their t heir legitimate and specific objects as appropriated by law ””.  .