G.R. No. L-21189, November 28, 1964
JOSE AVENDAÑO and MARTA AVENDAÑO, petitioners, vs. THE HON. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA, THE SHERIFF OF MANILA, THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY and LUZVIMINDA PARUNGAO SAN PEDRO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Luzviminda Parungao San Pedro filed a complaint for a sum of money against petitioners Jose Avendaño and Marta Avendaño (spouses) in the Municipal Court of Manila. The Municipal Court ruled in favor of San Pedro. On appeal to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, the case was assigned to respondent Judge Federico C. Alikpala. Petitioners failed to reproduce their answer and third-party complaint, leading to their being declared in default. After ex parte reception of evidence, the CFI rendered a decision, finding that the promissory notes were signed solely by Marta Avendaño without proof that the loans were obtained with her husband’s knowledge and consent. Consequently, the CFI sentenced only Marta Avendaño to pay San Pedro the sum of P2,000.00 with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Upon finality of the judgment, San Pedro obtained a writ of execution directed at the “goods and chattels of Marta Avendaño.” The respondent Sheriff of Manila subsequently issued a writ of garnishment on the salaries of Marta Avendaño from her employer, respondent Manila Railroad Company (MRR). The garnishment effectively withheld her salaries from November 15, 1962, onward. Marta Avendaño only learned of the CFI decision when her salary was garnished. Petitioners moved to set aside the order of default and later filed a petition to invalidate the writ of garnishment, arguing that: (1) the salary, being conjugal property, was not among the “goods and chattels” of Marta Avendaño alone subject to execution; (2) garnishment of salaries is prohibited by law and public policy; and (3) even if garnishable, the salary was necessary for family support and thus exempt. The respondent judge denied both the petition and a subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners then filed the present special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion and/or excess of jurisdiction. The Court issued a preliminary injunction to halt the garnishment.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion and/or acted in excess of jurisdiction in denying the petition to invalidate the writ of garnishment on the salary of petitioner Marta Avendaño.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, declared the writ of garnishment null and void, and made the preliminary injunction permanent.
The Court held that the garnishment was illegal because the salary of Marta Avendaño was exempt from execution under Section 12, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, which exempts from execution so much of the debtor’s earnings for personal services within the preceding month as are necessary for the support of his family. The ratio decidendi is that the exemption of necessary family support from execution is a matter of public policy, and this exemption applies equally to garnishment, which is a species of execution. The Court found, based on unrebutted evidence, that Marta Avendaño’s net monthly salary of P151.50 was insufficient for her required contribution of P220.00 to the monthly maintenance of her family. Therefore, the entire salary was necessary for family support and exempt from seizure.
The Court further anchored its ruling on established jurisprudence. Citing Garcia v. Castillo, it reiterated that only salary “due” is subject to attachment, and only if it is not shown to be necessary for family support. Moreover, invoking Director of Commerce and Industry v. Concepcion, the Court emphasized considerations of public policy that forbid the garnishment of salaries still in the hands of a public officer or a government instrumentality (like the MRR, a government-owned corporation), as such funds are considered public money until disbursed to the employee. The respondent judge’s denial of the petition despite clear evidence of exemption constituted grave abuse of discretion, and the sheriff’s act in issuing the garnishment was in excess of jurisdiction.
Given this disposition, the Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve the other issues raised by petitioners regarding the conjugal nature of the salary.