PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs ESTEBAN I.

VAZQUEZ
G.R. No. L-47578, April 8, 1941
ALMER RODPHIL L. TINAPAY

FACTS:
In 1925, Esteban I. Vazquez successfully obtained a loan from PNB 24,000 with
a mortgage against his sugar cane harvest. The amount of 19,521.09 was advanced to
the defendant with a 9% interest per annum. However, the proceeds of the sugar cane
only yielded 7,636.59 which left the deficit from the loan amounting to 11,884.50 +
7,984.97 of interest resulting to a total amount of deficit of 19,869.47.
An action to recover the amount was instituted and the same having no appeal
became final and executory however, the same was not enforced for year via writ of
execution. The bank filed a complaint for bill of execution and demanded the
preventive seizure of sugar spiked owned by the later to be sold by the Provincial
sheriff. The same was sold at 5,250.13 and was deducted to the total liability of the
defendant.
The plaintiffs appeal was concerned on the decision which orders the deduction
of the sum mentioned therein from the amount adjudicated to the plaintiff. The
plaintiffs argue that sugar cane was still in the ownership and possession of the
defendant even after the attachment or the public auction sale hence, any
misappropriation of the proceeds whether by the provincial sheriff or others, the losses
of such should fall upon the defendants.
ISSUE:
Whether or not losses incurred after the satisfaction of judgment out of the
property attached should be against the defendants?
RULING:
No. As correctly observed by the trial judge, "once the decision in the aforesaid
civil case had become final, the proceed of the sugar attached in connection therewith
should be considered as partial satisfaction of the amount of the judgment." "Personal
property may have levied upon under attachment and left in the possession of the
sheriff or other officer levying the writ to secure the payment of such judgment as may
be recovered in the action. Where execution issues, it is the duty of such officer to
apply towards its satisfaction the property so attached and left in his hands; but he
may have embezzled or otherwise misappropriated it, or allowed it to be lost by his
negligence. When such is the case, we think the better opinion is, that it must, as
between the plaintiff and defendant, and persons claiming under defendant, be treated
as though it had been levied upon under execution as well as under attachment, and
therefore as satisfying the judgment to the extent of its value."
 And whether or not the Provincial Sheriff was negligent in the performance of
his official duties by not turning the money over the plaintiff, is a question which
could only be determined in a separate case and hence, immaterial in the present
controversy.
It should be observed that affirmative acts of the plaintiff Bank have resulted in the
attachment and subsequent sale of the property of the defendant. It seems fair that
plaintiff having put defendant's property into the hands of the sheriff, the loss should
fall on him and not on defendant. When a sheriff takes property or goods in execution
or by attachment, he becomes the bailee for the benefit of all parties interested, and
certainly for the party who set him in motion. After obtaining the judgment, plaintiff at
once was entitled to have the proceeds of the sale applied to the satisfaction of his
judgment and it was the duty of the sheriff to pay the proceeds over. The money
collected or paid the sheriff on the sale of the goods or property may be regarded just
like money in the hands of a sheriff collected on execution. If the sheriff collects money
from a judgment debtor, and then fails to pay it over, the debtor cannot be compelled
to pay it again.