Napocor vs. Gonong, 1989 Facts: 1.

The case has been instituted by Allied Control and Electric Corporation (ACEC) to recover sum of money against Batong Buhay Gold Mines, Inc. (BBGMI), in which judgment was ordered against BBGMI to pay ACEC its indebtedness; 2. However, attempt for execution failed. Hence, ACEC filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Examination of Debtor of Judgment Debtor, alleging that NPC was a debtor of BBGMI; 3. Judge Gonong, then summoned Mr. Viroya, Manager of NPC General Accounts Division, and from his statement it was found out that: NAPOCOR and BBGMI entered into an agreement, in which BBGMI will financed the construction of the line connecting their mining site to the lines of NPC. In exchange NPC is going to reimburse BBGMI the amount spent to said construction by crediting 25% of latters monthly bill. However, BBGMI ceased its operation leaving a balance of P18,947,623.06 which is still due to defendant (but Vinoya testified that it not due to BBGMI but balance made by BBGMI in the construction of the power lines); 4. Judge Gonong then direct the NPC to pay ACEC, out of its remaining credit NPC held in favor of BBGMI and further directed Sheriff Adriano to garnish and attach said credit Basis: Sec 15, Rule 39 authorizing sheriff charged w/ execution to levy on debts and credits in addition to real property, stocks, shares and other personal property or any interest in either real or personal property; 5. NPC filed a Manifestation alleging that: a. Court has no jurisdiction to issue the assailed order, since they were never a party in the said civil case: b. NPC was not in possession of any property belonging to BBGMI nor does BBGMI have any receivable from NPC; 6. No action was taken by Judge Gonong in response to such Manifestation (Motion to Set Aside the Order); 7. Hence this present action of certiorari; Issue: WON, Judge Gonong act with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction when it ordered the garnishment of NPCs property. Held: YES

1. It is within Judge Gonong prerogative to require the appearance, by subpoena, of officials of NPC to appear and be questioned regarding the latters claimed indebtedness to BBGMI, HOWEVER, it was not within his power to order the payment of alleged debtor of the judgment debtor to pay the claimed debt without indubitable admission or conclusive proof that that the debt existed and was demandable; 2. Sec. 15, Rule 39 is not applicable in this case (procedure that the sheriff would follow in enforcing money judgment against debtor himself). Applicable provisions are Sec 42 and 45 of same rule which provides that after summary examination of a person or entity alleged to be a debtor of the judgment debtor or holding property belonging to the latter execution may issue against such person or entity only upon an incontrovertible showing that the person or entity in fact holds property belonging to the judgment debtor or indeed a debtor of said judgment debtor. 3. In Economic Insurance Co., Inc vs. Torres, the Court ruled that the only power of the Court in proceedings supplemental to execution is to make an order authorizing the creditor to sue in the proper court to recover indebtedness due to a judgment debtor. The Court has no jurisdiction rd to try summarily the question whether the 3 party served with notice of execution and levy is indebted to defendant when such indebtedness is denied. To make an order in relation to property which the garnishee claimed to own on his own right, requiring its application in satisfaction of judgment of another, would be to deprive the garnishee of property upon summary proceeding and w/out due process of law.