ATTY. FRED L. BAGBAGEN, PETITIONER, VS. ANNA MAY F. PEREZ, RESPONDENT.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 274980
- Promulgated: 2025-02-17
- Ponente: GAERLAN, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Atty. Fred L. Bagbagen (Bagbagen), a city councilor, and Frank Leo Telintelo were acquitted of Estafa but found civilly liable to Anna May Perez (Perez) in a Decision dated January 17, 2014, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City. The RTC ordered them solidarily to indemnify Perez and her co-heirs the principal amount of PHP 308,000.00 with legal interest. Subsequently, a Notice of Garnishment was issued on August 29, 2019, pursuant to a Writ of Execution, targeting Bagbagen's salary deposited at the Philippine Veterans Bank, Baguio City Branch. Bagbagen filed a Motion to Lift Notice of Garnishment, arguing that his salary, being government funds, was exempt from garnishment based on **The Director of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry v. Concepcion** and **Avendaño v. Hon. Alikpala**. The RTC denied the motion in its October 22, 2019 Order, stating that once the funds were deposited in Bagbagen's account, they ceased to be government funds and were thus no longer exempt. Bagbagen's Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied in the RTC's January 6, 2020 Order. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the RTC's orders. Bagbagen appealed to the Supreme Court. ## Issues 1. Did the CA err in upholding the RTC Orders directing the garnishment of Bagbagen's salaries? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Court **denied** the petition, finding no reversible error in the CA's decision to uphold the RTC Orders directing the garnishment of Bagbagen's salaries. The Court first dismissed Bagbagen's argument regarding the assignment of monies to be garnished, as it was raised for the first time on appeal. The Court affirmed the garnishment of Bagbagen's salaries, although it clarified the rationale. While previous cases held that public officials' salaries become private funds upon deposit, thereby losing their exemption from garnishment, the Court now emphasized that the **salaries of public officials are subject to garnishment because they are not covered by the exemptions provided under existing laws and rules**. The Court cited **Rule 39, Section 9(c)** of the 2019 Amended Rules of Court, which allows the garnishment of bank deposits and other credits, and **Rule 39, Section 13(i)**, which exempts "so much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the judgment obligor for his personal services within the four months preceding the levy as are necessary for the support of his family." This procedural rule, when read with **Article 1708 of the New Civil Code**, which states, "The laborer's wage shall not be subject to execution or attachment, except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and medical attendance," applies specifically to "laboring men or women whose works are manual," not to public officials like Bagbagen. The Court highlighted that there is no law explicitly exempting the salaries of public officials from garnishment, unlike the specific exemptions provided for laborers. Public officials are subject to stricter rules regarding their compensation due to their role as custodians of public trust. The Court concluded that the determining factor for garnishment is the absence of any law explicitly exempting such salaries, not merely the private nature of the funds after deposit. Thus, Bagbagen's salaries and bonuses as a government official are not exempt from garnishment. ## Doctrines - **Issues not raised below cannot be raised on appeal:** Issues that were not alleged or proved before the lower court cannot be decided for the first time on appeal, as this rule ensures fair play, justice, and due process. - **Garnishment of public officials' salaries:** The salaries of public officials are subject to garnishment because there is no specific law exempting them from such, unlike the limited exemptions provided for laborers under **Rule 39, Section 13(i) of the Rules of Court** and **Article 1708 of the Civil Code**. - **Exemption from…
Keywords
Rule 45 Rules of Court, Rule 39 Section 9(c) 2019 Amended Rules of Court, Rule 39 Section 13 2019 Amended Rules of Court, Article 1708 Civil Code, 1987 CONSTITUTION Article XI Section 1, 1987 CONSTITUTION Article XIII Section 3, Salaries of public officials subject to garnishment, Issues raised for the first time on appeal, Garnishment of salaries of public officials, Execution of judgment, Petition for Review on Certiorari, Garnishment, Writ of Execution, In custodia legis, Exemption from execution, Preponderance of Evidence, Certiorari, Motion to Lift Notice of Garnishment, Motion for Reconsideration, Petition denied