G.R. No. L-58313 December 8, 1988
GENARO NOLASCO and ANGELITA ORBIGO, petitioners, vs. HON. TEODORO K. BELTRAN, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, TEOFILO LACIBAR JR. and SUSANA LAQUIHON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Genaro Nolasco and Angelita Orbigo entered into a subdivision development agreement with private respondent Teofilo Lacibar Jr. Upon Nolasco’s default, Lacibar filed a case for rescission. The parties later entered into an amicable settlement, which was approved as a judgment on compromise by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Mindoro on June 2, 1976. The judgment obligated petitioners to pay P10,000.00 in two installments and to “settle in full the GSIS obligation of the property” within a specified period. Petitioners paid the P10,000.00 but failed to settle the GSIS debt.
Consequently, the trial court issued a second alias writ of execution on March 16, 1981, to enforce the unpaid GSIS obligation. The writ merely reproduced the judgment’s text without specifying the amount due to the GSIS. The provincial sheriff, relying on xerox copies of GSIS receipts provided by the private respondents without notice to the petitioners, determined the amount to be P87,011.47. He then garnished P30,000.00 belonging to petitioner Nolasco deposited with the Philippine National Bank. Petitioners moved to quash the writ and lift the garnishment, but the respondent judge denied their motion. They thus filed this special action for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the second alias writ of execution and in authorizing the garnishment based thereon.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court annulled the second alias writ of execution and the related order. The writ was fatally defective for failing to state the exact amount due for the GSIS obligation, as required by Section 8, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that a money execution must state “the amount actually due.” The writ’s mere recital of the judgment clause ordering settlement of the GSIS debt, without a liquidated sum, rendered it unenforceable. Execution must be based on a determinate amount, and the sheriff cannot unilaterally ascertain this amount ex parte.
The garnishment was also improper because the P30,000.00 was the subject of a pending litigation (Civil Case No. R-336) between petitioner Nolasco and the PNB, wherein the bank claimed the money as a downpayment for a repurchase. The ownership of the funds was therefore in dispute, and the sheriff’s levy prejudiced the bank’s claim without due process. The Court emphasized that the writ’s enforcement against property with a contested ownership constituted an excess of jurisdiction. The temporary restraining order was made permanent.