Tec bi Facts: This is an action to recover from the defendant THE CHARTERED BANK OF IND IA, AUSTRALIA &

CHINA the sum of P11,572.96, the amount of a judgment recovered by TEC BI & CO. against La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.), and for which Tec Bi see ks to hold the bank liable by virtue of an attempted levy of attachment upon cer tain leaf tobacco in the possession of the bank under a pledge executed by the s aid La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.). The Tobacco being pledged for an amount larg ely in excess of its value, the bank refused to deliver it to the sheriff, and t he pledge having become due, sold the tobacco and applied the proceeds on accoun t of the indebtedness, previous to the time when Tec Bi finally secured judgment against La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.) and issued execution thereon. On the 7th of November 1912, Tec Bi sold to the La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.), a quantity of leaf tobacco. On the 16th January, 1913, the La Urania Cigar Facto ry (Ltd.), pledged to the bank as security for the payment of an indebtedness of P25,000 the bales of tobacco. The bales of tobacco thus pledged were stored in the bodega of a third person, that is to say, in the bodega of Messrs. Sprungli & Co., situated at No. 42 (now No. 214) of Calle David, Manila. On or about the 1st day of February, 1913, the bank demanded from Messrs. Sprungli & Co. the key s to the said bodega, and discovered that the bales of tobacco were less. The defendant bank did not know and had been unable to ascertain whether La Uran ia Cigar Factory (Ltd.), misrepresented the quantity of the tobacco in the said warehouse at the time of the execution of said document of pledge, or whether th e difference between the amount described in the document of pledge and that fou nd on hand on the 1st of February, 1913, and in the meantime been disposed of by La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.), in collusion with Messrs. Sprungli & Co., but t hat if such disposition was made it was without the knowledge or consent of the defendant bank. From said 1st day of February, 1913, the bank had been in the ab solute and exclusive possession of the tobacco until the 15th of May, 1913, when same was sold under and by virtue of the document of pledge by the defendant ba nk for the sum of P12,722.36 which was applied on account of said loan, the enti re amount of which was then past due and unpaid, leaving a large balance thereof still due and unpaid. On the 22nd day of April, 1913, Tec Bi & Co., filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.), claiming the pa yment of the sum of P11,572.96 as the balance of the unpaid purchase price of th e tobacco. On the 5th day of May, 1913, Tec Bi & Co. asked for and obtained from the Court of First Instance an attachment against the said bales of tobacco, bu t inasmuch as the bodega was locked and the sheriff was informed that the keys w ere in the possession of the bank, he demanded the delivery thereof from the lat ter, which demand was refused by the bank, alleging that it held possession of t he tobacco under a pledge. In view of the statement of the bank, the sheriff not ified it that the bales of tobacco were attached subject to the results of the c omplaint were filed by Tec Bi & Co. against La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.). On t he 8th day of May, 1913, the bank answered the notification of the sheriff, conf irming the fact that it had in its possession the bales of tobacco specified in the notification, as security for the payment of a loan and that it intended to sell the same; that the sheriff communicated the answer of the bank to the attor neys of Tec Bi & Co., who replied insisting upon the levy of the attachment. On the 19th day of May, 1913, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment in said case against La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.), in favor of Tec Bi & Co., for the sum of P11,572.96, with legal interest from April 22, 1913, and costs. On the 22nd day of May, 1913, the sheriff attempted to execute the judgment upon the bales of tobacco attached and in the possession of the bank, but was unable to do so due to the statement of the agent of said bank, that the tobacco had b een sold and that the proceeds of the sale had been applied upon the payment of

the amount due to from La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.). The Court of First Instance found that the plaintiff Tec Bi's claim was a prefer red credit under; that the pledge executed by "La Urania Cigar Factory (Ltd.)," in favor of the defendant bank was not binding upon Tec Bi for the reason that i t was not set forth in a public instrument as required by law in order to be eff ective against third person, and rendered judgment in favor of Tec Bi and agains t the bank for the amount of the former's judgment against La Urania Cigar Facto ry (Ltd.) with interest and costs. This decision was eventually confirmed by the SC. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA, AUSTRALIA & CHINA filed a motion for rehearing. One of its contentions was that Tec Bi should not have been permitted to maintain a n original and independent action against the garnishee. Issue: W/N Tec Bi can maintain an action against the bank, the garnishee. Ruling: YES. The doctrine is thus announced in the syllabus of Roberts & Co. vs. Landecker (9 Cal., 262): 1. ATTACHMENT PROCEEDINGS; STATUTORY AND SPECIAL. It is well settled that the pro ceedings by attachment are statutory and special, and must be strictly pursued, and when a party relies upon his attachment-lien as a remedy, he must strictly f ollow the provisions of the Attachment Law. 2. ID; LIABILITY OF GARNISHEE. The provisions of the one hundred and twenty-eight h section were intended for the security of the plaintiff, and not to confer a p rivilege upon the garnishee, and the plaintiff may or may not, at his election, require the garnishee to appear and answer on oath, and his liability will not b e affected by the failure of the plaintiff to take such a step. 3. ID.; PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GARNISHEE. A plaintiff who has sued out an attachment and given the necessary notice to a garnishee that the property in his hands is attached, and subsequently the garnishee fraudulently disposes of the property, has a right to waive his lien on the property, and bring suit for the value of t he property, against the garnishee. 4. STATUTORY RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. If a statute gives a particular remedy in confer ring a new right, then the particular remedy must be pursued; but under the Atta chment Law a new right is created, but no practical remedy is prescribed." The syllabus in the case of Carter vs. Los Angeles National Bank (116 Cal., 3701) is as follows: ATTACHMENT; GARNISHMENT; ACTION BY JUDGMENT CREDITOR AGAINST GARNISHER. After exec ution unsatisfied against the judgment debtor, the judgment creditor may bring a n action at law against a garnishee upon whom notice was served under an attachm ent issued in the action before judgment; and it is not necessary before bringin g such action that the garnishee should be required to appear and answer, or tha t an order should be obtained authorizing the action against the garnishee; and no equitable circumstance need be shown to justify the suit, which is upon direc t liability of the garnishee to the plaintiff in that suit provided for in secti on 544 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 544 of the California Code of Civil Procedure is identical with section 432 of the Philippine Code of Civil Procedure, which, like most of the provision s of our Code touching attachment proceedings, was borrowed literally from the C alifornia Code; and the SC cannot agree with counsel that the provisions of sect ion 436 of our Code furnish a "practical remedy" to enforce the right conferred in section 432 which differentiates the doctrine which should be applied in this jurisdiction from that set forth in the above cited opinions of the Supreme Cou rt of California.