Case Digest: China Bank v Ortega
Chinabank v Ortega
GR. L-34964
Facts:
On December 17, 1968 Vicente Acaban
filed a complaint in the court a quo against Bautista Logging Co., Inc., B
& B Forest Development Corporation and Marino Bautista for the collection
of a sum of money. Upon motion of the plaintiff, the court declared the
defendants in default for not answering within the prescribe period. To satisfy
the judgment, the plaintiff sought for the garnishment of the bank deposits of
the defendants with the China Banking Corporation. Consequently, a notice of
garnishment was issued by the deputy sheriff of the trial court and served on
the bank’s cashier. The bank cashier, replied in the negative. In the reply, he
invited the attention of the sheriff to RA 1405. The plaintiff then filed a
motion to cite the cashier for contempt of court. The trial court, despite
having denied the motion, ordered that the cashier confirm whether or not the
defendants have existing deposit in their bank.
The cashier moved to reconsider but was denied and, subsequently, he was
ordered to comply with the order of the court within 10 days, otherwise, he
would be arrested. Hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not china bank may
validly refuse to comply with a court process garnishing the bank deposit of
the debtor by invoking the provisions of RA 1405.
Held:
The prohibition against examination
of or inquiry into a bank deposit under Republic Act 1405 does not preclude its
being garnished to insure satisfaction of a judgment. In the present case,
there was no inquiry as to how much the actual deposits are, the only inquiry
that the court had was whether or not there are deposits of the then defendants
in China bank
Comments
Post a Comment