G.R. No. 146400 . October 25, 2005.
Bernardito A. Florido, Petitioner, vs. Shemberg Marketing Corporation, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Shemberg Marketing Corporation filed a complaint for collection with a prayer for a writ of preliminary attachment against Solomon Nacua, Jr. The trial court granted the writ. The sheriff levied upon five marine vessels owned by Nacua. Petitioner Bernardito A. Florido filed a Third-Party Claim and a Motion to Declare Levy on Attachment Null and Void, asserting that Nacua had pledged the vessels to him as security for a loan prior to the levy. He also filed a Motion to Cancel the attachment bond, alleging the bonding company lacked proper authority.
The trial court denied petitioner’s motions, ruling he had no legal personality to challenge the attachment bond and that service of summons was proper. Petitioner then filed a separate “Complaint of Third-Party Claimant” for vindication of his claim, which remained pending. Subsequently, he filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to nullify the trial court’s orders, which the CA dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner, as a third-party claimant, had the legal personality to challenge the writ of attachment and the attachment bond through the motions he filed in the main collection case.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the specific remedies prescribed for third-party claimants under the Rules of Court. Section 14, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides the exclusive procedure when property attached is claimed by a person not a party to the action. The claimant must serve an affidavit of title or right of possession upon the sheriff and the attaching party. Upon such service, the sheriff is not obliged to retain the property unless the attaching party posts an indemnity bond. The rule expressly reserves the claimant’s right to vindicate his claim in a separate action.
Petitioner did not comply with this procedure. Instead of submitting the required affidavit, he improperly injected his claim into the main case by filing motions to annul the levy and cancel the bond. His proper recourse was to pursue his pending separate action for vindication of his third-party claim. The Court emphasized that a stranger to the action must resort to the remedies under the Rules, and cannot short-circuit the process by directly assailing ancillary writs in a case where he is not a party. His challenge to the attachment bond was also misplaced, as such a challenge is generally available only to the defendant against whom the writ was issued, not to a third party.