Perla Compania de Seguros Vs Ramolete

PerlaCompania De Seguros, Inc. vsRamolete, et.
al
G.R. No. L-60887 November 13, 1991
Facts:
On June 1976, a Cimarron PUJ owned by Nelia Enriquez, and driven by Cosme Casas, was
travelling from Cebu City to Danao City. While passing through Liloan, Cebu, the Cimarron
PUJ collided with a private jeep owned by the late CalixtoPalmes (husband of private
respondent PrimitivaPalmes) who was then driving the private jeep. The impact of the
collision was such that the private jeep was flung away to a distance of about thirty (30)
feet and then fell on its right side pinning down CalixtoPalmes. He died as a result of cardio-
respiratory arrest due to a crushed chest. The accident also caused physical injuries on the
part of 2-year-old AdeudatusBorbon.
Private respondents Primitiva and HonoratoBorbon, Sr. (father of Adeudatus) filed a

complaint against Cosme and Nelia before the then Cebu CFI claiming actual, moral,
nominal and exemplary damages as a result of the accident. The claim of Borbon, Sr. was
excluded from the complaint due to jurisdiction.
The CFI ruled in favor of Primitiva, ordering common carrier Nelia to pay her damages and
attorney’s fees. The judgment of the trial court became final and executory and a writ of
execution was issued, which however, returned unsatisfied, prompting the court to
summon and examine Nelia. She declared that the Cimarron PUJ was covered by a third-
party liability insurance policy issued by petitioner Perla.
Palmes then filed a motion for garnishment praying that an order of garnishment be issued
against the insurance policy issued by petitioner in favor of the judgment debtor.
Respondent Judge then issued an Order directing the Provincial Sheriff or his deputy to
garnish the third-party liability insurance policy. Petitioner filed for MR and quashal of the
writ of garnishment on the ground that Perla was not a party to the case and that
jurisdiction over its person had never been acquired by the trial court by service of
summons or by any process. The trial court denied petitioner’s motion.An Order for
issuance of an alias writ of garnishment was subsequently issued.
More than two (2) years later, the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition was filed
with this Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Judge Ramolete
in ordering garnishment of the third-party liability insurance contract issued by petitioner
Perla in favor of the judgment debtor, Nelia Enriquez. The Petition should have been
dismissed forthwith for having been filed way out of time but, for reasons which do not
appear on the record, was nonetheless entertained.
Issue:
1. W/N there is GADALEJ on the part of the respondent judge

2. W/N there insurance policy may be subject to garnishment
Held:
1. No. The SC found no grave abuse of discretion or act in excess of or without jurisdiction
on the part of respondent Judge Ramolete in ordering the garnishment of the judgment
debtor’s third-party liability insurance.
2. Yes. Garnishment has been defined as a species of attachment for reaching any property
or credits pertaining or payable to a judgment debtor. In legal contemplation, it is a forced
novation by the substitution of creditors: the judgment debtor, who is the original creditor
of the garnishee is, through service of the writ of garnishment, substituted by the judgment
creditor who thereby becomes creditor of the garnishee. Garnishment has also been
described as a warning to a person having in his possession property or credits of the
judgment debtor, not to pay the money or deliver the property to the latter, but rather to
appear and answer the plaintiff’s suit.
In order that the trial court may validly acquire jurisdiction to bind the person of the
garnishee, it is not necessary that summons be served upon him. The garnishee need not be
impleaded as a party to the case. All that is necessary for the trial court lawfully to bind the
person of the garnishee or any person who has in his possession credits belonging to the
judgment debtor is service upon him of the writ of garnishment.
Rule 39, Section 15 and Rule 57, Section 7(e) of the ROC themselves do not require that the
garnishee be served with summons or impleaded in the case in order to make him liable.
In the present case, there can be no doubt, therefore, that the trial court actually acquired
jurisdiction over petitioner Perla when it was served with the writ of garnishment of the
third-party liability insurance policy it had issued in favor of judgment debtor Nelia
Enriquez. Perla cannot successfully evade liability thereon by such a contention.
In a third-party liability insurance contract, the insurer assumes the obligation of paying
the injured third party to whom the insured is liable. The insurer becomes liable as soon as
the liability of the insured to the injured third person attaches. Prior payment by the
insured to the injured third person is not necessary in order that the obligation of the
insurer may arise. From the moment that the insured became liable to the third person, the
insured acquired an interest in the insurance contract, which interest may be garnished
like any other credit.
A separate action is not necessary to establish petitioner’s liability.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is hereby DISMISSED for having been filed out of
time and for lack of merit. Judgment AFFIRMED.

Perla Compania de Seguros Vs Ramolete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Perla Compania de Seguros Vs Ramolete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

PerlaCompania De Seguros, Inc. vsRamolete, et.

Private respondents Primitiva and HonoratoBorbon, Sr. (father of Adeudatus) filed a

1. W/N there is GADALEJ on the part of the respondent judge

A separate action is not necessary to establish petitioner’s liability.

You might also like