Third-Party Claims in Attachment: Following Rule 57’s Prescribed Remedies

The Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Florido v. Shemberg Marketing Corporation (G.R. No. 146400) clarifies an important point for anyone whose property is seized in a case they are not a party to. When a sheriff levies on property under a writ of attachment, a third-party claimant cannot simply file motions in the main case to challenge the levy. The Rules of Court provide a specific procedure, and deviating from it can mean losing the right to question the attachment.

The Dispute

Shemberg Marketing Corporation sued Solomon Nacua, Jr. for a sum of money and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment against his property. The sheriff levied on five vessels owned by Nacua. Bernardito Florido, a third party, then filed a "Third-Party Claim" in the trial court, asserting that Nacua owed him P7 million and had pledged the vessels as security.

Florido also filed a motion to declare the levy null and void, arguing improper service of summons, and a motion to cancel the attachment bond. The trial court denied all his motions, ruling he had no personality to challenge the attachment bond since only the defendant could do so. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and Florido elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether Florido, as a stranger to the main case, had the legal personality to challenge the attachment writ and bond through motions filed in that case.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court denied Florido’s petition and affirmed the lower courts. The Court held that Florido had no personality to challenge the attachment in the main case. His remedy lay elsewhere.

The Court pointed to Section 14, Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides the specific remedy for a third-party claimant. Under this rule, a person claiming a right to attached property must file an affidavit of title or right to possession with the sheriff. If the attaching party fails to post an indemnity bond, the sheriff must release the property. The third-party claimant may also file a separate action to vindicate the claim.

Florido instead chose to file motions in the main case and a special civil action for certiorari. This, the Court said, was a "short-circuit" of the rules. The Court cited Roque v. Court of Appeals and La Tondeña Distillers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, which both held that a stranger to an action must resort to the remedies provided by the Rules, not to collateral attacks on the attachment.

The Court also noted a key fact: Nacua's ownership of the vessels was never disputed. The only exception to the general rule—where a summary hearing is allowed—applies when the sheriff mistakenly levies on property not belonging to the judgment debtor. That was not the case here.

Practical Takeaways

• A third-party claimant must follow Section 14, Rule 57. The proper remedy is to file an affidavit of title or right to possession with the sheriff, not to file motions in the main case.
• Filing motions in the main case gives no personality to challenge the attachment bond. Only the defendant in the main case can question the bond's validity.
• A separate action to vindicate the claim is allowed. The third-party claimant may file an independent action for recovery of property or intervene in the main case.
• Certiorari is not a substitute for the prescribed remedies. A special civil action for certiorari requires that there be no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. When Rule 57 provides one, certiorari is unavailable.
• The exception is narrow. A summary hearing is only permitted when the sheriff mistakenly levies on property not belonging to the judgment debtor. If ownership by the defendant is undisputed, the third-party claimant must follow the full procedure.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.