Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 47578. April 8, 1941. ]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ESTEBAN I. VAZQUEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

Ramon Diokno, for Appellant.

Zoilo Hilario, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1 ATTACHMENT; EXECUTION; DUTY OF SHERIFF. — Personal property may have been levied upon under attachment and left in the possession of the sheriff or other officer levying the writ to secure the payment of such judgment as may be recovered in the action. Where execution issues, it is the duty of such officer to apply towards its satisfaction the property so attached and left in his hands; but he may have embezzled or otherwise misappropriated it, or allowed it to be lost by his negligence. When such is the case, we think the better opinion is, that it must as between the plaintiff and defendant, and persons claiming under defendant, be treated as though it had been levied upon under execution as well as under attachment, and therefore as satisfying the judgment to the extent of its value.

2. ID; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — Affirmative acts of the plaintiff Bank have resulted in the attachment and subsequent sale of the property of the defendant. It seems fair that plaintiff having put defendant’s property into the hands of the sheriff, the loss should fall on him and not on defendant. When a sheriff takes property or goods in execution or by attachment, he becomes the bailee for the benefit of all parties interested, certainly for the party who set him in motion. After obtaining the judgment, plaintiff at once was entitled to have the proceeds of the sale applied to the satisfaction of his judgment and it was the duty of the sheriff to pay the proceeds over. The money collected or paid take sheriff on the sale of the goods or property may be regarded just like money in the hands of a sheriff collected on execution. If the sheriff collects money from a judgment debtor, and then fails to pay it over, the debtor cannot be compelled to pay it again.


D E C I S I O N


LAUREL, J.:


Plaintiff appeals to this court from a decision of Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, promulgated January 18, 1938, the dispositive part reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Wherefore, the court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, reviving the judgment in the aforesaid civil case No. 4031 of this same court, but deducting from the amount thereof the sum P5,250.13, the deduction to be computed as of the date the judgment in said civil case had become final and executory."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears that on or about the 27th day of May, 1926, Esteban I. Vazquez succeeded in negotiating with the Philippine National Bank a loan for P24,000, on the 1925-26 sugarcane harvest of his hacienda "Mandalagan" ; that the money advanced him by the plaintiff bank totalled P19,521.09, at an agreed 9 per cent interest per annum and a mortgage executed on his sugarcane harvest; that additional guaranty was put up by one Cristeta Ibañez; and, that after liquidation of the debt as of March 31, 1927, the following was the result:

Total advances against 1926-26 crop loan P19,521.09

Total proceeds of sugar sales 7,636.59

—————

Deficit (principal)’ 11,884.50

Interest at 9 per cent to March 31,1927 7,984.97

—————

Total deficit to March 31, 1937 19,869.47

Daily interest on P11,884.60 at 9 per cent 2.97

(Bill of Exceptions, pp. 9-10.)

Subsequently, in an action filed by the bank for the recovery of the total amount due and owing, defendant Vazquez was ordered by the court to settle his obligation in full. (Civil Case No. 4031, Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros.) No appeal was interposed by any of the parties to the decision of October 31, 1931, and the same became and executory. But the said judgment not having enforced by writ of execution and the period of five having elapsed, the plaintiff bank, on July 22, 1937, a complaint (Bill of Exceptions, pp. 2-6) for the revival of the judgment. To this complaint, defendant on August 12, 1937, filed his answer and set up the following counterclaim:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Que, como se puede ver en el expediente de la causa civil No. 4031 mencionada en el parrafo II de la demanda, a piticion del demandante, previa fianza prestada por el mismo actor y en virtud de ordenes judiciales, fueron embargados preventivamente del demandado 500 picos de azucar de la propiedad de este, y vendidos por el Shiriff Provincial de Negros Occidental a razon de P10.75 cada uno, habiendose tambien ordenado por el mismo Hon. Juzgado, a peticion igualmente del demandante, el deposito en el Banco Nacional Filipino del producto neto de dicha

Top of Page