G.R. No. L-60887 November 13, 1991
PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, PRIMITIVA Y. PALMES, HONORATO BORBON, SR., OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, PROVINCE OF CEBU, respondents.

FACTS

A Cimarron PUJ owned by Nelia Enriquez collided with a private jeep, resulting in the death of Calixto Palmes and injuries to a minor. Primitiva Palmes, the widow, filed a complaint for damages against the driver and Enriquez. The Court of First Instance rendered a decision in favor of Palmes, ordering Enriquez to pay various damages. The judgment became final and executory, but a writ of execution was returned unsatisfied. During a debtor’s examination, Enriquez revealed her vehicle was covered by a third-party liability insurance policy issued by Perla Compania de Seguros. Consequently, the trial court, upon Palmes’s motion, issued an order garnishing that insurance policy.
Petitioner Perla, though not a party to the original case, moved for reconsideration and to quash the writ, arguing the court acquired no jurisdiction over its person due to lack of summons. The trial court denied the motion and later issued an alias writ of garnishment. Perla then filed this Petition for Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion, contending that a separate action under Rule 39, Section 45 of the Rules of Court was necessary to bind it, and that it was denied the opportunity to raise defenses under the insurance contract.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the garnishment of the third-party liability insurance policy issued by Perla to the judgment debtor without Perla being impleaded as a party and without a separate civil action.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court’s orders. The legal logic is that garnishment is a valid provisional remedy to reach credits payable to a judgment debtor. Jurisdiction over a garnishee, like an insurer holding a credit for the insured debtor, is acquired not by summons but by service of the writ of garnishment itself. The garnishee need not be impleaded as a party. The Court distinguished the cited precedent, Economic Insurance Company, Inc. v. Torres, which requires a separate action only when the garnishee claims an adverse interest or denies the debt. Here, Perla did not deny issuing the policy or assert any substantive defense against the insured judgment debtor; it merely challenged jurisdiction on procedural grounds. By failing to raise substantive defenses in its motion for reconsideration, Perla is deemed to have waived them. Thus, the garnishment proceeding was sufficient, and no separate action was required. The trial court acted within its jurisdiction and without grave abuse of discretion.