G.R. No. L-17789; May 8, 1922
BENEDICTA GARCIA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN CASTILLO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Plaintiff Benedicta Garcia holds a money judgment against defendant Juan Castillo. To satisfy the judgment, Garcia sought to execute on Castillo’s monthly salary of P65 from the Manila Railroad Company. The justice of the peace, acting as Judge of First Instance, allowed the execution on P50 of this monthly salary. The proceeding is treated as one for garnishment to subject money owed to the judgment debtor by a third party (his employer).

ISSUE

Whether the unearned monthly salary of a judgment debtor is subject to garnishment or execution to satisfy a money judgment.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order allowing the garnishment. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, only property or money “due” to the judgment debtor is subject to execution. Where a salary is earned monthly and paid at the end of the month, it is not “due” until the end of the month when the services have been fully rendered. Therefore, a creditor cannot garnish or attach the unearned, future salary of a debtor. The Court noted the record lacked an affidavit from the debtor showing the earnings were necessary for family support (which could provide an additional exemption), but the decision rested on the principle that unearned salary is not yet “due.” The reversal was without prejudice to the plaintiff initiating proper proceedings to enforce the judgment.