The Supreme Court ruled that a third-party claimant cannot directly challenge a writ of attachment in a lawsuit between other parties. Instead, they must file a separate action to assert their claim to the attached property. This decision clarifies the proper procedure for protecting the rights of individuals who claim ownership or a right to possess property seized in legal proceedings to which they are not a party, ensuring that such claims are addressed through the appropriate legal channels.

Whose Property Is It Anyway? Navigating Attachment Disputes When You’re Not a Party

The case of Bernardito A. Florido v. Shemberg Marketing Corporation arose from a collection suit filed by Shemberg Marketing Corporation against Solomon Nacua, Jr. Shemberg sought and was granted a writ of preliminary attachment over Nacua’s assets, specifically five marine vessels. Bernardito Florido, the petitioner, then filed a third-party claim, asserting that Nacua owed him money and had pledged the vessels to him as security. Florido challenged the levy on attachment and the attachment bond itself, arguing that the service of summons was invalid and the bonding company lacked proper authorization.

The trial court denied Florido’s motions, stating that he lacked the standing to challenge the attachment bond and that summons had been properly served. Florido then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to nullify the trial court’s orders. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision, prompting Florido to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Florido, as a third-party claimant, had the right to challenge the writ of attachment and the attachment bond in the original action between Shemberg and Nacua.

The Supreme Court anchored its decision on Section 14, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which outlines the remedies available to a third-party claimant in attachment proceedings. This rule specifically addresses situations where someone other than the defendant claims a right to the attached property. The rule states:

If the property attached is claimed by any person other than the party against whom attachment had been issued or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto, or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of such right or title, and serves such affidavit upon the sheriff while the latter has possession of the attached property, and a copy thereof upon the attaching party, the sheriff shall not be bound to keep the property under attachment, unless the attaching party or his agent, on demand of the sheriff, shall file a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied upon. In case of disagreement as to such value, the same shall be decided by the court issuing the writ of attachment. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.

The sheriff shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of such property, to any such third-party claimant, if such bond shall be filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant to any third person from vindicating his claim to the property, or prevent the attaching party from claiming damages against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim, in the same or a separate action.

The Court emphasized that Florido did not submit an affidavit of his title asserting his right to the vessels. Instead, he chose to pursue his claim within the existing action between Shemberg and Nacua. The Supreme Court found this approach improper, emphasizing that the veracity of his claim should be addressed through the procedures explicitly laid out in the Rules of Court. This procedural misstep was critical to the Court’s ultimate decision.

The Court rejected Florido’s argument that filing an affidavit of claim or a separate action would not provide prompt relief. The Court found this justification to be a self-serving attempt to circumvent established legal procedures. The Court drew upon previous rulings to underscore the remedies available to third-party claimants. In Roque v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reiterated that a special civil action for certiorari is inappropriate if there are plain, speedy, and adequate remedies available in the ordinary course of law. The Court highlighted that the petitioner in Roque could have availed themselves of the remedy provided for in Section 14, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court.

The Court further supported its decision by referencing La Tondeña Distillers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, which discussed the remedies available to a person not a party to an action where property is seized pursuant to a writ of delivery. The Court clarified that a stranger to the action has the remedy known as a terceria, or third-party claim, which is identical to the remedy granted to strangers in a proceeding on preliminary attachment or execution of judgments. The Court emphasized that, in lieu of or in addition to filing a terceria, the third party may vindicate their claim to the property through any proper action, such as a separate action for recovery of the property or intervention in the replevin action itself.

The Supreme Court acknowledged a narrow exception to this rule: when the sheriff mistakenly levies on properties in which the defendant has no interest. In such cases, a summary hearing is held to determine whether the sheriff has seized property not belonging to the judgment debtor. However, the Court clarified that this exception did not apply in Florido’s case, as Nacua’s ownership of the vessels was never disputed. Therefore, Florido was required to follow the prescribed procedure for vindicating his claim on the vessels rather than attempting to bypass the established rules.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a third-party claimant could challenge a writ of attachment in an action between other parties, instead of filing a separate action to assert their claim.
What is a writ of preliminary attachment?	A writ of preliminary attachment is a court order that allows a plaintiff to seize a defendant’s property to secure a potential judgment in a lawsuit. It prevents the defendant from disposing of assets before a judgment is reached.
What is a third-party claim in the context of attachment?	A third-party claim arises when someone who is not a party to a lawsuit asserts ownership or a right to possess property that has been attached by a court order. This claim seeks to protect the third party’s interest in the property.
What remedies are available to a third-party claimant?	Under Section 14, Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a third-party claimant can file an affidavit of their title or right to possession with the sheriff and attaching party, or file a separate action to vindicate their claim to the property.
Why did the Supreme Court deny Florido’s petition?	The Supreme Court denied the petition because Florido did not follow the prescribed procedure for third-party claims. He attempted to challenge the writ of attachment directly in the original action instead of filing a separate claim.
What is the significance of Section 14, Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure?	This rule outlines the specific steps a third-party claimant must take to protect their rights when property they claim to own or have a right to possess is attached in a lawsuit between other parties. It balances the interests of the attaching party and the third-party claimant.
What is a “terceria”?	A “terceria” is a third-party claim, a remedy available to a stranger to an action whose property is seized pursuant to a writ of delivery. It’s analogous to the remedy available in preliminary attachment or execution of judgments.
Can a third-party claimant file a special civil action for certiorari?	Generally, no. A special civil action for certiorari is inappropriate if there are other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies available, such as filing a third-party claim or a separate action.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Florido v. Shemberg Marketing Corporation reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal procedures, particularly in cases involving third-party claims to attached property. The ruling clarifies that individuals asserting rights to such property must follow the remedies outlined in the Rules of Court, ensuring a structured and orderly resolution of these disputes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: BERNARDITO A. FLORIDO v. SHEMBERG MARKETING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 146400, October 25, 2005