Manejero v. Lampa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Benito Manejero filed civil case No. 9628 to annul a deed of sale, depositing P610 with the clerk of court. This case was dismissed at petitioner's instance on September 20, 1934. The next day, petitioner filed a new complaint (case No. 9971) with the same causes of action and defendants, requesting the prior deposit be considered for the new case. Meanwhile, respondents Ricardo A. Luna and Estrella Zamora filed an ejectment case against petitioner in the justice of the peace court, obtaining a judgment for P120 in rents due and unpaid, plus P15 monthly rent. Petitioner appealed this judgment to the Court of First Instance (case No. 9627). Procedural History: Respondents, as plaintiffs in case No. 9627, sought a writ of execution to apply the P610 deposit towards the judgment from the justice of the peace court. The respondent judge initially granted this, but later set aside the order, deeming the money in custodia legis. Upon reconsideration, the respondent judge, on October 11, 1934, issued an order setting aside the previous order and directing the issuance of a new writ of execution, applying the P610 deposit to the judgment. The clerk of court issued the writ, and the sheriff attached the P610, paid P362.16 to the Luna spouses, and retained the balance. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to set aside the respondent judge's order of October 11, 1934, and the subsequent writ of execution, arguing that the judge lacked jurisdiction because the money was in custodia legis and thus not subject to levy.
Issue(s)
Whether money deposited with the Clerk of Court as consignation remains in custodia legis even after the dismissal of the underlying case, thereby exempting it from attachment and execution.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The order of October 11, 1934, and the writ of execution issued by the clerk of court are set aside. Respondents Estrella Zamora, Ricardo Luna, and the provincial sheriff of Iloilo are ordered to return the sum of P610 to the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that money deposited with a clerk of court is exempt from attachment and not subject to execution. Relying on the established doctrine in Springer v. Odlin (3 Phil. 344), the Court clarified that such funds are held in custodia legis. The respondents' contention that the dismissal of the first case (No. 9628) terminated the status of the funds was rejected. The Court emphasized that when the first case was dismissed, the trial court made no pronouncement regarding the restitution of the deposit; therefore, the money remained under the court's jurisdiction and control. A depositor cannot recover such funds without an express order of restitution from the court. Consequently, because no such order had been issued when the sheriff levied on the P610, the funds were still in custodia legis and legally protected from seizure. The Court further noted that even if there were procedural deficiencies in the notice of consignation under the Civil Code, these were irrelevant to the status of the funds as property under judicial custody for purposes of exemption from execution.
Main Doctrine
Money deposited with the clerk of court, being in custodia legis, is exempt from attachment and execution.