GR 75866; (February, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 75866 February 23, 1989
THE NEW OWNERS/MANAGEMENT OF TML GARMENTS, INC., REPRESENTED HEREIN BY GEDELIZA F. CELEBRE, petitioners, vs. ANTONIO V. ZARAGOSA, OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF OF QUEZON CITY AND SHERIFF JUANITO B. LINDO, respondents.
FACTS
TML Garments, Inc., originally owned by a group referred to as the “Former Owners,” leased property from Antonio Zaragoza. Due to unpaid rentals, Zaragoza filed a complaint (Civil Case No. Q-29325) against the Former Owners. The defendants failed to appear at a hearing, leading to an ex-parte presentation of evidence. Subsequently, on June 5, 1982, the Former Owners sold all their rights and interests in TML Garments, Inc. to Rogelio T. Zamora. On October 15, 1982, the trial court rendered a decision against the Former Owners, ordering them to pay Zaragoza various sums.
To enforce this judgment, an alias writ of execution was issued. On August 27, 1986, Sheriff Juanito B. Lindo levied upon properties located at the company’s new address in Paranaque, which were claimed by the “New Owners.” The New Owners filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Quash the alias writ, asserting ownership of the levied properties and attaching supporting affidavits. The trial court set a hearing for their motion. Despite this pending resolution, the sheriff issued a new notice of auction sale for September 18, 1986, prompting the New Owners to file an urgent petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which issued a temporary restraining order.
ISSUE
Whether the properties of the New Owners, who were not parties to the original case, can be levied upon to satisfy the judgment debt of the Former Owners without first resolving the factual issue of ownership and affording the New Owners due process.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, the New Owners. The Court emphasized the fundamental principle that a writ of execution can only be enforced against a party to the action. The New Owners were not impleaded as defendants in the original case, were not summoned, did not participate in the proceedings, and were not named as judgment debtors in the decision. To levy upon their claimed properties without affording them an opportunity to be heard constitutes a deprivation of property without due process of law.
The core issue—whether there was a valid change of ownership and whether the levied properties belong to the New Owners or the judgment debtors—is inherently factual. The Supreme Court, exercising its certiorari jurisdiction, is not a trier of facts. Its function is not to make original findings on such contested factual matters, especially when evidence needs to be formally presented and evaluated. This task properly belongs to the trial court. Therefore, the Court ordered the Regional Trial Court to hear and definitively resolve the factual question of ownership over the levied properties. Pending this resolution, the enforcement of the alias writ of execution was enjoined to protect the New Owners’ constitutional right to due process.