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.
View Full Document
- Fall '14
- gutierrez hermanos, B.A. Finance Corporation