Manotoc v. McMicking
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff, Clemente Manotoc, as guardian of his minor children, sought a writ of mandamus against Jose McMicking, Sheriff of Manila, and Gregorio Trinidad. The objective was to compel the sheriff to levy an attachment on a house owned by Trinidad and sell it to satisfy a judgment of P522.71 entered in favor of the plaintiff against Trinidad in a justice of the peace court. The judgment had become final. Procedural History: A writ of execution was issued by the justice of the peace of Manila to the sheriff, directing the attachment and sale of Trinidad's property. However, it was alleged that Trinidad possessed no property exempt from execution, except for a house he occupied with his family, valued at less than P150, which was erected on land not owned by him. The plaintiff identified this house to the sheriff for attachment, but the sheriff refused to attach and sell it despite the writ being in force. The Petition: The plaintiff filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the sheriff to levy upon and sell the specified house to satisfy the judgment. The defendants demurred to the complaint, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute a cause of action.
Issue(s)
Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel a sheriff to levy an attachment on a specific piece of property when the writ of execution is general in terms. Whether the remedy of mandamus is appropriate when ordinary legal remedies, such as supplementary proceedings, are available.
Ruling
The demurrer to the complaint is sustained. The plaintiff is granted ten days to file an amended complaint if desired. No special ruling as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel a sheriff to levy an attachment on a specific piece of property when the writ of execution is general in terms: The Court held that the remedy of mandamus will not lie to compel a sheriff to levy an attachment upon certain specified property, especially when the writ of execution issued is general in terms against the property of the debtor. The demand in this case was to compel the sheriff, by means of mandamus, to attach a specific and determined property. The Court reiterated the doctrine established in Petersen vs. Peterson, Sheriff of the city of Manila, that such a specific compulsion is not within the scope of mandamus. While it may be true that the plaintiff would ultimately be entitled to attach the house if it were the only property subject to execution, the procedure for compelling such action through mandamus is not provided by law. The law does not impose upon a sheriff the obligation to levy upon a specific piece of property when the writ of attachment issued is general. On the issue of whether the remedy of mandamus is appropriate when ordinary legal remedies, such as supplementary proceedings, are available: The Court found that the matter at issue, concerning the satisfaction of a judgment where the writ of execution might be unsatisfied, is expressly provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure under supplementary proceedings (Sections 474 et seq.). These provisions establish the necessary procedure to obtain a court order directing that any property of the judgment debtor, not exempt by law, be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment. The Court noted that the question of whether a determined property of the judgment debtor is exempt from execution, and if it may or may not be levied upon, can be properly addressed within this ordinary and adequate procedure. Since such a procedure exists, the special and extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus cannot be granted under the law, as per Sections 222 and 515 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Main Doctrine
A writ of mandamus will not lie to compel a sheriff to levy an attachment upon specific property when the writ of execution is general in terms, as there are ordinary and adequate procedures provided by law for such situations, such as supplementary proceedings.