G.R. No. 32924 , November 6, 1930
EDWARD J. PFLEIDER, plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE ASIA LUMBER CO., INC., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

This is the second appeal in this case. The defendant, Asia Lumber Co., Inc., filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo claiming damages of P25,000 against the plaintiff (Pfleider), the special deputy sheriff (Agapito Cariño), and the Philippine Guaranty Co. The damages were allegedly suffered due to the sheriff’s execution of a prior judgment against the defendant and his negligence in safeguarding the levied property. The lower court ordered Cariño and the Guaranty Co. to be made parties, but they were never summoned or served a copy of the motion. After hearing evidence, the trial court absolved the plaintiff, finding that the damages were caused by the defendant’s own negligence. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the special deputy sheriff took possession of the attached property and is responsible for its damages.
2. Whether the sheriff and the bonding company should be ordered to pay damages under their bond.
3. Whether the plaintiff should be held liable for the damages suffered by the attached property.

RULING

1. No. The sheriff did not take actual or material possession of the property. The “Notice of Attachment” (Exhibit 105) explicitly provided that the property remained in the defendant’s possession, custody, and care, with the defendant continuing to enjoy its use. The levy was made only to prevent disposal or encumbrance of the property pending final judgment. Therefore, the sheriff cannot be held responsible for the property’s depreciation or damage.

2. No. Agapito Cariño and the Philippine Guaranty Co. never became parties to the case. Despite the lower court’s order, the defendant failed to serve them with a copy of the motion or have them summoned. Since they were not properly made parties, no judgment for damages could be rendered against them.

3. No. The damages to the property were caused by the defendant’s own negligence or the acts/omissions of its employees, who were left in possession per Exhibit 105. The evidence showed the defendant’s financial distress led to unpaid wages and abandonment of care for the property. The plaintiff, having no control over the property after the levy, bears no liability.

The decision of the lower court is AFFIRMED. Costs against the appellant.