G.R. No. L-20653; April 30, 1965
Domingo Bautista, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Jose Ma. Barredo, et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Domingo Bautista obtained a judgment against the Philippine Ready Mix Concrete Company, Inc. in Civil Case No. 1636 for a balance of P46,000.00. To collect this, writs of garnishment were served on various persons, including Jose M. Barredo, who was a sublessee of an Osgood shovel crane belonging to the judgment debtor company. The writ ordered Barredo to pay the sheriff any rentals due under the lease instead of paying the company. Barredo made several payments totaling P1,800.00 to Bautista pursuant to the writ but then refused further payment, claiming an agreement with Bautista that upon paying that amount, he would no longer be molested. Subsequently, the court issued an order declaring Barredo in contempt and ordering his arrest unless he paid P6,600.00 in accrued rentals. Barredo appealed this order to the Court of Appeals and filed a supersedeas bond subscribed by the State Bonding and Insurance Company, Inc. to stay the order pending appeal. The Court of Appeals set aside the contempt order, reserving Bautista’s right to take action to enforce any remaining indebtedness. Bautista then filed the present action against Barredo and the bonding company, based on Barredo’s liability under the garnishment and the supersedeas bond. The trial court dismissed the complaint against both defendants. Bautista appealed, and the case was certified to the Supreme Court as involving only questions of law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint against Jose M. Barredo on the ground that he was not a party to the original case (Civil Case No. 1636) and thus an action on the judgment could not be maintained against him.
2. Whether the trial court erred in absolving the State Bonding and Insurance Company, Inc. from liability under the supersedeas bond.

RULING

1. Yes, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint against Jose M. Barredo. While Barredo was not an original party in Civil Case No. 1636, jurisdiction was acquired over him when the sheriff served him with the writ of garnishment after final judgment. The garnishment proceeding made him a forced intervenor in the case. The court cited Tayabas Land Company v. Sharruf, which held that through the citation (writ of garnishment), the stranger (garnishee) becomes a forced intervenor, and the court requires him to pay his debt to the judgment creditor, not to the original debtor. Therefore, Bautista’s action against Barredo was not based on the judgment itself but on Barredo’s liability arising from the writ of garnishment. The case against Barredo was remanded to the trial court for decision on the merits.
2. No, the trial court correctly absolved the State Bonding and Insurance Company, Inc. The condition of the supersedeas bond was that it would be void if Barredo’s appeal was decided against him and he did not abide by the judgment. Since the Court of Appeals decided the appeal in Barredo’s favor (setting aside the contempt order), the principal condition for the bonding company’s liability—an adverse judgment against Barredo—did not occur. Consequently, by the bond’s own terms, it became null and void. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the bonding company.