GR L 15410; (April, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15410; April 26, 1961
MANUEL M. ANTONIO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MAURO SAMONTE, ET AL., defendants. THE NATIONAL WATER WORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY (NAWASA), Creditor of the Judgment Debtor, petitioner-appellee.
FACTS
Manuel Antonio obtained a final judgment against spouses Mauro and Mely Samonte. A writ of execution was issued, and the Sheriff garnished credits of Samonte held by NAWASA. Despite the garnishment, NAWASA disbursed funds to Samonte. Upon examination, the Municipal Court found NAWASA still held P1,377.00 of Samonte’s credits and, on April 10, 1958, ordered NAWASA to pay Antonio P992.25 from these funds. NAWASA did not object to this initial order.
Subsequently, NAWASA filed a petition to set aside the April 10 order, alleging it had discovered prior claims against Samonte’s credits, specifically for unpaid wages totaling P3,853.50. On May 10, 1958, the Municipal Court granted NAWASA’s petition and ordered that its prior April 10 directive to pay Antonio be withheld “for the time being.” Antonio appealed this May 10 order to the Court of First Instance, which dismissed the appeal, ruling the order was merely interlocutory and thus not appealable.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipal Court’s order dated May 10, 1958, is a final and appealable order.
RULING
Yes, the order is final and appealable. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for the appeal to be given due course. The test for a final order is its effect on the rights of the parties. A final order adjudicates the rights of the parties on a definite matter, leaving nothing more for the court to do regarding that issue.
The May 10, 1958 order, while phrased as a temporary withholding, had the substantive effect of adjudicating the priority of claims against the garnished funds. By granting NAWASA’s petition to satisfy other alleged claims first, the order effectively destroyed the priority established by Antonio’s garnishment. Since the alleged prior claims (P3,853.50) exceeded the remaining garnished funds (P1,377.00), the order left Antonio with no practical recourse, as his judgment would only be satisfied if a surplus remained after paying NAWASA’s claimants. The order authorized the disposition of the fund without requiring any further judicial action, definitively settling the issue of preference. Consequently, it was a final order that disposed of Antonio’s substantive right to enforce his judgment lien via garnishment, making it appealable.