Artacho v. Tan Chu Chay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Judgment was entered in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in favor of Tan Chu Chay against Isabelo Artacho for P3,430, with interest and costs. This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Procedural History: After the case was remanded, an execution was issued and delivered to Sheriff Antonio Sison. Artacho refused to pay, alleging the debt had been legally attached by the sheriff of Manila in a suit by a creditor of Tan Chu Chay against the latter. Sheriff Sison reported this to the Court of First Instance, which then ordered the issuance of a second execution. The Petition: Artacho commenced a proceeding in the Supreme Court via an original action of certiorari, seeking to annul the order for the second execution, alleging that the judge exceeded his jurisdiction and that the order was void. A temporary injunction was secured.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the issuance of a second execution despite the alleged attachment of the debt by the sheriff of Manila. Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy under the circumstances.
Ruling
The demurrer to the complaint is sustained. The plaintiff is given five days to amend his complaint; otherwise, final judgment will be entered for the defendants with costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan had jurisdiction over the case of Tan Chu Chay against Artacho, both as to the parties and the subject matter. The mere fact that the debt due from Artacho to Tan Chu Chay had been attached by the sheriff of Manila did not oust the Pangasinan court of its jurisdiction to proceed with the case. The court's power to issue an execution on its judgment remained intact. The Court cited previous decisions, including Rubert and Guamis vs. Sweeney, Somes vs. Crossfield, and Yambert vs. McMicking, to support the principle that attachment by another court does not divest the original court of jurisdiction. Whether Artacho could prevent double payment through other proceedings in the Court of First Instance under section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure was a matter for that court to decide, not a ground for certiorari. On Issue 2: The Court found that the present action of certiorari could not be maintained. Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy used to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The order for a second execution, even if potentially erroneous or leading to double payment, did not constitute an act performed without or in excess of jurisdiction by the judge. The proper recourse for Artacho was to seek relief within the original proceedings in the Court of First Instance, possibly by filing a motion to quash the execution or by initiating a separate action to address the attachment, rather than resorting to a writ of certiorari to nullify the order.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that lies only to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The mere fact that a debt has been attached by another court does not divest the original court of its jurisdiction over the case, nor does it automatically render an order for a second execution void. The plaintiff's remedy, if any, to prevent double payment should be sought through appropriate proceedings in the lower court, not through a writ of certiorari.