G.R. No. L-44537 May 26, 1978
EMMA C. ONA, in her capacity as Sheriff of Caloocan City, petitioner, vs. HON. SERAFIN R. CUEVAS, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IV and UNI-ACE SALES CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

The Sheriff of Caloocan City, Emma C. Ona, levied upon several sewing machines belonging to spouses Wilfredo and Segundina Garcia pursuant to a writ of attachment issued by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. 3640, where Uniwide Marketing Co. was the plaintiff. Subsequently, Uni-Ace Sales Corporation filed a third-party claim over the same sewing machines, asserting ownership by virtue of a deed of sale executed by Wilfredo Garcia. Uniwide Marketing opposed the claim, alleging the deed was simulated, and filed an indemnity bond to protect the Sheriff.
Uni-Ace Sales Corporation then filed a separate replevin action (Civil Case No. 99508) against the Sheriff before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IV, presided by Judge Serafin R. Cuevas, seeking possession of the machines. On November 10, 1975, the Manila court issued an order directing the Sheriff to seize and deliver the property to Uni-Ace. The Sheriff manifested her inability to comply, explaining the properties were in custodia legis under the control of the Rizal court. Despite this, on August 10, 1976, the Manila court found the Sheriff guilty of indirect contempt and imposed a fine for disobeying its order.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila acted in excess of jurisdiction in issuing a writ of replevin and a contempt order against the Sheriff for properties already under attachment and in the custody of another court of equal rank.

RULING

Yes, the respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction. The Supreme Court annulled the orders dated November 10, 1975 and August 10, 1976. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that property under attachment is in custodia legis, placing it under the exclusive custody and control of the court that issued the writ. A court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot, through a replevin order, divest the attaching court of its custody. This prevents the unseemly scenario of one judge nullifying the order of another, ensuring orderly administration of justice.
The Court, citing Montesa vs. Manila Cordage Co., ruled that Rule 60 (Replevin) explicitly prohibits the issuance of a writ for property that has been “taken by virtue of a writ of attachment or execution against the property of the plaintiff.” The sewing machines, having been validly attached by the Rizal court, fell under this prohibition. The Manila court’s replevin order effectively interfered with the prior lawful order of the Rizal court. Consequently, the Sheriff was legally justified in refusing to comply, and the contempt citation was invalid. The proper recourse for Uni-Ace was to pursue its claim in the attachment case or seek relief in the same proceeding where the property was custodia legis.