Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Tobias, Marlon G.

Consti 1 / Atty. Arias

[G.R. No. L-32667. January 31, 1978.]
official capacity as authorized Deputy Sheriff, respondents.

What was sought to be garnished was the money of the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation
deposited at petitioner's branch in Quezon City, to satisfy a decision of respondent Court which had become
final and executory.

The validity of the order assailed is challenged on 2 grounds:

1. That the appointment of respondent Gilbert P. Lorenzo as authorized deputy sheriff to serve the
writ of execution was contrary to lawas it is the sheriff of QC and not the clerk of court should
2. That the funds subject of the garnishment "may be public in character".

A motion to quash is a request to a court to render a previous decision of that court or a lower judicial body
null or invalid. It can arise out of mistakes made by any lawyer in a court proceeding while a garnishment is a
legal procedure by which a creditor can collect what a debtor owes by reaching the debtor's property when it is
in the hands of someone other than the debtor.

-Main Issue:WON the funds of the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corp. deposited w/ petitioner
considered public in nature in the affirmative, can be subject to garnishment.
-Sub Issue:WON the appointment of deputy sheriff to serve the write of execution is contrary to law
Whether or not an order of the now defunct respondent Court of Industrial Relations denying for lack of
merit petitioner's motion to quash a notice of garnishment can be stigmatized as a grave abuse of

Assignment of Deputy Sheriff
As stated in the new law, as such Ex-Officio Sheriff, the Clerk of this Court has therefore the authority to issue
writs of execution and notices of garnishment in an area encompassing the whole of the country.

Ground that could have been relied upon not even categorically raised, petitioner limiting itself to the assertion
that the funds "could be public" in character, thus giving rise to the applicability of fundamentalconcept of non-
suability is hardly persuasive.

The premise that the funds could be spoken of as public in character may be accepted in the sense that the
People's Home site and Housing Corporation was a government-owned entity. It does not follow though that
they were exempt from garnishment

Based on existing jurisprudence, government owned and controlled corporation, the People's Home site and
Housing Corporation has a personality of its own, distinct and separate from that of the Government, thus, not
exempted to garnishment. Garnishment was the appropriate remedy for the prevailing party which could
proceed against the funds of a corporate entity even if owned or controlled by the government.

The People's Home site and Housing Corporation had a juridical existence enabling it sue and be sued.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed. No costs.