AgencyDPFebruary32014

Becausethefiveprerogativesenumerated in the former is

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: October 17, 1968, it sent a letter to the officials of the Bureau of Public Highways notifying them of the notice of garnishment. Under date of October 16, 1968, respondent estate further filed with the lower Court an ex­parte motion for the issuance of an order ordering respondent bank to release and deliver to the special sheriff, respondent Garcia, the garnished amount of P209,076.00 deposited under the account of petitioner Bureau, which motion was granted by respondent judge in an order of October 18, 1968. On the same day, October 18, 1968, respondent Coruña allegedly taking advantage of his position, authorized the issuance of a cashier's check of the bank in the amount of P209,076.00, taken out of the funds of petitioner Bureau deposited in current account with the bank and paid the same to respondent estate, without notice to said petitioner. Later on December 20, 1968, petitioners, through then Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar, wrote respondent bank complaining that the bank acted precipitately in having delivered such a substantial amount to the special sheriff without affording petitioner Bureau a reasonable time to contest the validity of the garnishment, notwithstanding the bank's being charged with legal knowledge that government funds are exempt from execution or garnishment, and demanding that the bank credit the said petitioner's account in the amount of P209,076.00, which the bank had allowed to be illegally garnished. Respondent bank replied on January 6, 1969 that it was not liable for the said garnishment of government funds, alleging that it was not for the bank to decide the question of legality of the garnishment order and that much as it wanted to wait until it heard from the Bureau of Public Highways, it was "helpless to refuse delivery under the teeth" of the special order of October 18, 1968, directing immediate delivery of the garnished amount. Petitioners therefore filed on January 28, 1969 the present action against respondents, in their capacities as above stated in the title of this case, praying for judgment declaring void the question orders of respondent Court. Petitioners also...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online