Dela Victoria vs. Burgos 245 SCRA 374
FACTS:
RAUL H. SESBREÑO filed a complaint for damages against
Assistant City Fiscals Bienvenido N. Mabanto, Jr., and Dario D. Rama, Jr.,
before the RTC of Cebu City. After trial judgment, Rama Jr and Mabanto Jr. were
ordered to pay P11,000.00 to the private respondent herein. The decision having
become final and executory, on motion of the latter, the trial court ordered
its execution. On 15 January 1992 a writ of execution was issued.
On 4 February 1992 a notice of garnishment was served on
petitioner Loreto D. de la Victoria as City Fiscal of Mandaue City where
defendant Mabanto, Jr., was then detailed. The notice directed petitioner not
to disburse, transfer, release or convey to any other person except to the
deputy sheriff concerned the salary checks or other checks, monies, or cash due
or belonging to Mabanto, Jr., under penalty of law.
The trial court ordered Dela Victoria to submit his report
showing the amount of the garnished salaries of Mabanto, Jr. within 15 days
from receipt.
On 19 January 1993 petitioner moved to quash the notice of
garnishment claiming that he was not in possession of any money, funds, credit,
property or anything of value belonging to Mabanto, Jr., except his salary and
RATA checks, but that said checks were not yet properties of Mabanto, Jr.,
until delivered to him. He further claimed that, as such, they were still
public funds which could not be subject to garnishment.
The trial court dismissed the motion and ordered petitioner
to immediately comply with its order. It opined that the checks of Mabanto,
Jr., had already been released through petitioner by the Department of Justice
duly signed by the officer concerned. Upon service of the writ of garnishment,
petitioner as custodian of the checks was under obligation to hold them for the
judgment creditor. Additionally, there was no sufficient reason for petitioner
to hold the checks because they were no longer government funds and presumably delivered
to the payee, conformably with the last sentence of Sec. 16 of the Negotiable
Instruments Law.
ISSUE:
whether a check still in the hands of the maker or its duly
authorized representative is owned by the payee before physical delivery to the
latter
RULING:
Under Sec. 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, every
contract on a negotiable instrument is incomplete and revocable until delivery
of the instrument for the purpose of giving effect thereto. As ordinarily
understood, delivery means the transfer of the possession of the instrument by
the maker or drawer with intent to transfer title to the payee and recognize
him as the holder thereof.
The trial court recognized the role of petitioner as
custodian of the checks. At the same time however it considered the checks as
no longer government funds and presumed delivered to the payee based on the
last sentence of Sec. 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Law which states: “And
where the instrument is no longer in the possession of a party whose signature
appears thereon, a valid and intentional delivery by him is presumed.” Yet, the
presumption is not conclusive because the last portion of the provision says
“until the contrary is proved.” However this phrase was deleted by the trial court
for no apparent reason. Proof to the contrary is its own finding that the
checks were in the custody of petitioner. Inasmuch as said checks had not yet
been delivered to Mabanto, Jr., they did not belong to him and still had the
character of public funds.
Comments
Post a Comment