Loreto R. De La Victoria v. Hon. Jose P.

Burgos

G.R. No. 111190| June 27, 1995 | Bellosillo, J

Facts

1. Raul H. Sesbreno filed a Complaint for Damages against Assistant City Fiscals Bienvenido N.
Mabanto Jr. And Dario D. Rama, Jr. Later, judgement was rendered ordering the fiscals to pay
P11,000 to herein respondent.
2. A notice of garnishment was given to petitioner as City Fiscal of Mandaue City where Fiscal
Mabanto worked. The notice directed petitioner not to give the salary checks of Mabanto to any
other person except the deputy sheriff
3. Trial court later ordered petitioner to submit a report showing the amount of the garnished salaries
of Mabanto. Petitioner did not comply
4. Respondent filed a motion to require petitioner to explain why he should not be cited for contempt
for his refusal to comply with the order
5. Petitioner contended that the salary checks of Mabanto were not yet the latters properties because
they were not yet delivered to him. Hence, the said checks still form part of public funds and cannot
be subjected to garnishment.
6. Trial court ordered petitioner to immediately comply with its earlier order(Submission of Report).
Through Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, it contended that there was no reason for
petitioner to hold on to the checks since they were presumed delivered to the payee(Mabanto) and
was thus his property.
7. Trial court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition

Issue

1. Whether or not, a check still in hands of the maker or its authorized representative is already
owned by the payee even before the physical delivery of the check.
2. Whether or not, the salary check of a government employee funded by public funds be subjected
to garnishment

Ruling

1. No. Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law states that Where the instrument is no longer
in the possession of a party whose signature appears thereon, a valid and intention delivery by him
is presumed until the contrary is proved. Proof to the contrary is that the checks were still with
petitioner so this implies that there was no delivery yet to Mabanto and hence the checks did not
belong to him yet
2. No. Public funds cannot be subject to Garnishment in order to satisfy a judgement as it is against
public policy to do so as held in the case of Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego. There
the court stated that Functions and public services rendered by the state cannot be allowed to be
paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects as
appropriated by law.