Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

L-26815 May 26, 19810 ADOLFO L. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. ABRAHAM S BUG a!" COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

MELENC O-HERRERA, J.:1wph1.t The controvers in this case !ill be resolved on the basis of the follo!in" facts and e#positions. Prior to $pril %&, '(&) *the $++ID,NT D$T,-, Vicente .. Vidad *VID$D, for short- !as a dul authori/ed passen"er 0eepne operator. $lso prior to the $++ID,NT D$T,, petitioner $dolfo 1. Santos *S$NTOS, for short- !as the o!ner of a passen"er 0eep, but he had no certificate of public convenience for the operation of the vehicle as a public passen"er 0eep. S$NTOS then transferred his 0eep to the na2e of VID$D so that it could be operated under the latter3s certificate of public convenience. ln other !ords, S$NTOS beca2e !hat is 4no!n in ordinar parlance as a kabit operator. For the protection of S$NTOS, VID$D e#ecuted a re5transfer docu2ent to the for2er, !hich !as to be a private docu2ent presu2abl to be re"istered if and !here it !as decided that the passen"er 0eep of S$NTOS !as to be !ithdra!n fro2 the kabit arran"e2ent. On the $++ID,NT D$T,, private respondent $braha2 Sibu" *SI6.7 for short- !as bu2ped b a passen"er 0eepne operated b VID$D and driven b Severe 7ra"as. $s a result thereof, SI6.7 filed a co2plaint for da2a"es a"ainst VID$D and 7ra"as !ith the +ourt of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVII, then presided b 8on. $rsenic Solidu2. That +ivil +ase !ill hereinafter be referred to as the 6R$N+8 9VII +$S,. On Dece2ber :, '(&), a 0ud"2ent !as rendered b Branch XVII, sentencin" VID$D and 7ra"as, 0ointl and severall , to pa SI6.7 the su2s of P:;&.%; as actual da2a"es< P),;;;.;; as 2oral da2a"es< P:;;.;; as attorne 3s fees, and costs. 1 On $pril ';, '(&=, the Sheriff of Manila levied on a 2otor vehicle, !ith Plate No. P.>5)=)5&=, re"istered in the na2e of VID$D, and scheduled the public auction sale thereof on Ma ?,'(&=. On $pril '', '(&=, S$NTOS presented a third5part clai2 !ith the Sheriff alle"in" actual o!nership of the 2otor vehicle levied upon, and statin" that re"istration thereof in the na2e of VID$D !as 2erel to enable S$NTOS to 2a4e use of VID$D3S +ertificate of Public +onvenience. $fter the third5part co2plaint !as filed, SI6.7 sub2itted to the Sheriff a bond issued b the Philippine Suret Insurance +o2pan *T8, 6ONDIN7 +OMP$N@, for short-, To save the Sheriff fro2 liabilit if he !ere to proceed !ith the sale and if S$NTOS3 third5part clai2 should be ulti2atel upheld. On $pril %%, '(&=, that is, before the scheduled sale of Ma ?, '(&=, S$NTOS instituted an action for Da2a"es and in0unction !ith a pra er for Preli2inar Mandator In0unction a"ainst SI6.7< VID$D< and the Sheriff in +ivil +ase No. :&?=% of Branch X, of the sa2e +ourt of First Instance of Manila *hereinafter referred to as the 6R$N+8 9 +$S,-. The co2plaint !as later a2ended to include the 6ONDIN7 +OMP$N@ as a part defendant althou"h its bond had not beco2e effective. ln the +o2plaint, S$NTOS alle"ed essentiall that he !as the actual o!ner of the 2otor vehicle sub0ect of lev A that a fictitious Deed of Sale of said 2otor vehicle !as e#ecuted b hi2 in VID$D3S favor for purposes of operatin" said vehicle as a passen"er 0eepne under the latter3s franchise< that S$NTOS did not receive an pa 2ent fro2 VID$D in consideration of said sale< that to protect S$NTOS3 proprietar interest over the vehicle in Buestion, VID$D in turn had e#ecuted a Deed of Sale in favor of S$NTOS on >une %C, '(&%< that S$NTOS !as not a part in the 6R$N+8 9VII +$S, and !as not in an 2anner liable to the re"istered o!ner VID$D and the driver 7ra"as< that S$NTOS derived a dail inco2e of P);.;; fro2 the operation of said 2otor vehicle as a passen"er 0eepne and stood to suffer irreparable da2a"e !ill possession of said 2otor vehicle !ere not restored to hi2. S$NTOS then pra ed that ',- pendin" trial, a Drit of Preli2inar Mandator in0unction be issued e#5parte co22andin" the Sheriff of Manila to restore the 2otor vehicle to hi2 and that the Sheriff be en0oined fro2 proceedin" !ith its sale< %- that, after trial, the Deed of Sale in favor of VID$D be declared absolutel fictitious and, therefore, null and void, and ad0ud"in" S$NTOS to be the absolute o!ner of the vehicle in Buestioned and )- that da2a"es be a!arded to S$NTOS as proven durin" the trial plus attorne 3s fees in the a2ount of P=:;.;; and costs. 2 No public sale !as conducted on Ma ?, '(&=. On Ma '', '(&=, Branch X issued a Restrainin" Order en0oinin" the Sheriff fro2 conductin" the public auction sale of the 2otor vehicle levied upon. # The Restrainin" Order !as issued !ron"full . .nder the provisions of Section 'C, Rule )(, the action ta4en b the Sheriff cannot be restrained b another +ourt or b another 6ranch of the sa2e +ourt. The Sheriff has the ri"ht to continue !ith the public sale on his o!n responsibilit , or he can desist fro2 conductin" the public sale unless the attachin" creditor files a bond securin" hi2 a"ainst the third5part 5clai2. 6ut the decision to proceed or not !ith the public sale lies !ith hi2. $s said in . Piaoco vs. Osmea ( Phil. %((, );C, Ethe po!ers of the Sheriff involve both discretional po!er and personal liabilit .E The 2entioned discretional po!er and personal liabilit have been further elucidated in Planes and Verdon vs. Madrigal & Co., et al., (= Phil. C:=, !here it !as held. 1 !"h#1.$t The dut of the sheriff in connection !ith the e#ecution and satisfaction of 0ud"2ent of the court is "overned b Rule )( of the Rules of +ourt. Section ': thereof provides for the procedure to be. follo!ed !here the propert levied on e#ecution 3is clai2ed b a b person. lf the third5part clai2 is sufficient, the sheriff, upon receivin" it, is not bound to proceed !ith the lev of the propert , unless he is "iven b the 0ud"2ent creditor an inde2nit bond a"ainst the clai2 *Man"aoan" vs. Provincial Sheriff, (' Phil., )&?-. Of course, the sheriff 2a proceed !ith the lev even !ithout the Inde2nit bond, but in such case he !ill ans!er for an da2a"es !ith his o!n personal funds *Daits vs. Peterson, et al., S Phil. ='( $l/ua et al. vs. >ohnson, %' Phil., );?< +onsults No. )=' de los abo"ados de S2ith, 6ell F +o., =? Phil., :&:-. $nd the rule also provides that nothin" therein contained shall prevent a third person fro2 vindicatin" his clai2 to the propert b an proper action *Sec. ': of Rule )(.-. It appears fro2 the above that if the attachin" creditor should furnish an adeBuate bond. the Sheriff has to proceed !ith the public auction. Dhen such bond is not filed, then the Sheriff shall decide !hether to proceed. or to desist fro2 proceedin", !ith the public auction. lf he decides to proceed, he !ill incur personal liabilit in favor of the successful third5part clai2ant.

On October '=, '(&:, Branch X affir2ed S$NTOS3 o!nership of the 0eepne decreedA 1 !"h#1.$t

in Buestion based on the evidence adduced, and

D8,R,FOR,, 0ud"2ent is hereb rendered, en0oinin" the defendants fro2 proceedin" !ith the sale of the vehicle in Buestion orderin" its return to the plaintiff and further2ore sentencin" the defendant $braha2 Sibu" to pa the plaintiff the su2 of P':.;; a da fro2 $pril ';, '(&= until the vehicle is returned to hi2, and P:;;.;; as attorne 3s fee3s as !ell as the costs. $ This !as subseBuentl a2ended on Dece2ber :, '(&:, upon 2otion for reconsideration filed b S$NTOS, to include the 6ONDIN7 +OMP$N@ as 0ointl slid severall liable !ith SI6.7. 51wph1.t ... provided that the liabilit of the Philippine Suret F insurance +o., Inc. shall in no case e#ceed P&,:;;.;;. $braha2 Sibu" is further2ore conde2ned to pa the Philippine Suret F Insurance +o., Inc. the sa2e su2s it is ordered to pa under this decision. The 0u"d2ent in the 6R$N+8 9 +$S, appears to be Buite le"all unpalatable For instance, since the underta4in" furnished to the Sheriff b the 6ONDIN7 +OMP$N@ did not beco2e effective for the reason that the 0eep !as not sold, the public sale thereof havin" been restrained, there !as no reason for pro2ul"atin" 0ud"2ent a"ainst the 6ONDIN7 +OMP$N@. lt has also been noted that the +o2plaint a"ainst VID$D !as dis2issed. Most i2portant of all, the 0ud"2ent a"ainst SI6.7 !as ineBuitable. ln assertin" his ri"hts of o!nership to the vehicle in Buestion, S$NTOS candidl ad2itted his participation in the ille"al and pernicious practice in the transportation business 4no!n as the kabit s ste2. Sec.. %; *"- of the Public Service $ct, then the applicable la!, specificall providedA 1 !"h#1.$t ... it shall be unla!ful for an public service or for the o!ner, lessee or operator thereof, !ithout the approval and authori/ation of the +o22ission previousl had G ... *"- to sell, alienate, 2ort"a"e, encu2ber or lease its propert , franchise, certificates, privile"es, or ri"hts, or an part thereof. In this case, S$NTOS had fictitiousl sold the 0eepne to VID$D, !ho had beco2e the re"istered o!ner and operator of record at the ti2e of the accident. lt is true that VID$D had e#ecuted a re5sale to S$NTOS, but the docu2ent !as not re"istered. $lthou"h S$NTOS, as the kabit !as the true o!ner as a"ainst VID$D, the latter, as the re"istered o!nerHoperator and "rantee of the franchise, is directl and pri2aril responsible and liable for the da2a"es caused to SI6.7, the in0ured part , as a conseBuence of the ne"li"ent or careless operation of the vehicle. 6 This rulin" is based on the principle that the operator of record is considered the operator of the vehicle in conte2plation of la! as re"ards the public and third persons % even if the vehicle involved in the accident had been sold to another !here such sale had not been approved b the then Public Service +o22ission. 8 For the sa2e basic reason, as the vehicle here in Buestion !as re"istered in VID$D3S na2e, the lev on e#ecution a"ainst said vehicle should be enforced so that the 0ud"2ent in the 6R$N+8 9VII +$S, 2a be satisfied, not!ithstandin" the fact that the secret o!nership of the vehicle belon"ed to another. S$NTOS, as the kabit should not be allo!ed to defeat the lev on his vehicle and to avoid his responsibilities as akabit o!ner for he had led the public to believe that the vehicle belon"ed to VID$D. This is one !a of curbin" the pernicious kabit s%stem that facilitates the co22ission of fraud a"ainst the travellin" public. $s indicated in the ,re/o case, s&"ra, S$NTOS3 re2ed . as the real o!ner of the vehicle, is to "o a"ainst VID$D, the actual operator !ho !as responsible for the accident, for the recover of !hatever da2a"es S$NTOS 2a suffer b reason of the e#ecution. In fact, if S$NTOS, as the kabit had been i2pleaded as a part defendant in the 6R$N+8 9VII +$S,, he should be held 0ointl and severall liable !ith VID$D and the driver for da2a"es suffered b SI6.7, 9 as !ell as for e#e2plar da2a"es. 10 Fro2 the 0ud"2ent in the 6R$N+8 9 +$S, SI6.7 appealed. Mean!hile, S$NTOS 2oved for i22idiatel e#ecution. SI6.7 opposed it on the "round that Branch X had no 0urisdiction over the 6R$N+8 9VII +$S,, and that Branch X had no po!er to interfere b in0unction !ith the 0ud"2ent of 6ranch 9VII a +ourt of concurrent or coordinate 0urisdiction. 11 On Nove2ber '), '(&:, Branch X released an order authori/in" i22ediate e#ecution on the theor that the 6R$N+8 9 +$S, is Eprincipall an action for the issuance of a !rit of prohibition to forbid the Sheriff fro2 sellin" at public auction propert not belon"in" to the 0ud"2ent creditor *sicand there bein" no atte2pt in this case to interfere !ith the >ud"2ent or decree of another court of concurrent 0urisdiction.E 12 Dithout !aitin" for the resolution of his Motion for Reconsideration, SI6.7 sou"ht relief fro2 respondent $ppellate +ourt in a Petition for certiorari !ith Preli2inar in0unction. On Nove2ber '?, '(&:, respondent +ourt of $ppeals en0oined the enforce2ent of the Branch X Decision and the Order of e#ecution issued b said 6ranch. 1# On Septe2ber %?, '(&&, respondent +ount of $ppeals rendered the herein challen"ed Decision nullif in" the 0ud"2ent renderred in the Branch X+ase and per2anentl restrainin" V fro2 ta4in" co"ni/ance of the 6R$N+8 9 +$S, S$NTOS. It ruled thatA 1 !"h#1.$t ... the respondent +ourt 6ranch 9, indeed, encroached and interfered !ith the 0ud"2ent of 6ranch 9VII !hen it issued a restrainin" order and finall a decision per2anentl en0oinin" the other court fro2 e#cutin" the decision rendered in +ivil +ase No. :=)):. This to our 2ind constitutes an interference !ith the po!ers and authorit of the other court havin" co5eBual and coordinate 0urisdiction. To rule other!ise, !ould indubitabl lead to confusion !hich 2i"ht ha2per or hinder the proper ad2inistration of 0ustice. ... 1$ Respondent +ourt further held that S$NTOS 2a not be per2itted to prove his o!nership over a particular vehicle bein" levied upon but re"istered in another3s na2e in a separated action, observin" thatA 1 !"h#1.$t $s the vehicle in Buestion !as re"istered in the na2e of Vicente .. Vidad, the "overn2ent or an person affected b the representation that said vehicle is re"istered under the na2e of a particular person had the ri"ht to rel on his declaration of o!nership and re"istrationA and the re"istered o!ner or an other person for that 2atter cannot be per2itted to repudiate said

declaration !ith the ob0ective of provin" that said re"istered vehicle is o!ned b another person and not b the re"istered o!ner *sec. &?, *a-, Rule '%), and art. '=)', Ne! +ivil +ode### ### ### Dere !e to allo! a third person to prove that he is the real o!ner of a particular vehicle and not the re"istered o!ner it !ould in effect be tanta2ount to sanctionin" the atte2pt of the re"istered o!ner of the particular vehicle in evadin" responsibilit for it cannot be dispelled that the door !ould be opened to collusion bet!een a person and a re"istered o!ner for the latter to escape said responsibilit to the public or to an person. ... S$NTOS no! see4s a revie! of respondent +ourt3s Decision contendin" thatA 1 !"h#1.$t '- The respondent +ourt of $ppeals erred in holdin" that 6ranch 9 of the +ourt of First Instance of Manila has no 0urisdiction to restrain b Drit of In0unction the auction sale of petitioner3s 2otor vehicle to satisf the 0ud"2ent indebtedness of another personA %- The respondent +ourt of $ppeals erred in holdin" that petitioner as o!ner of a 2otor vehicle that !as levied upon pursuant to a Drit of ,#ecution issued b 6ranch 9VII of the +ourt of i stance of Manila in +ivil +ase No. :=)): cannot be allo!ed to prove in a separate suit filed in 6ranch 9 of the sa2e court *+ivil +ase No. :&?=%- that he is the true o!ner of the said 2otor vehicle and not its re"istered o!ner< )- The respondent +ourt of $ppeals erred in declarin" null and void the decision of the +ourt of First Instance of Manila *6ranch 9 - in +ivil +ase No. :&=?%. De "ave due course to the Petition for Revie! on certiorari on Dece2ber '=, '(&& and considered the case sub2itted for decision on >ul %;, '(&C. One of the issues ventilated for resolution is the "eneral Buestion of 0urisdiction of a +ourt of First Instance to issue, at the instance of a third5part clai2ant, an In0unction restrainin" the e#ecution sale of a passen"er 0eepne levied upon b a 0ud"2ent creditor in another +ourt of First Instance. The corollar issue is !hether or not the third5part clai2ant has a ri"ht to vindicate his clai2 to the vehicle levied upon throu"h a separate action. Since this case !as sub2itted for decision in >ul , '(&C, this +ourt, in 'raba%, lnc. vs. (on. )era*in )alvador , 15 spea4in" throu"h Mr. >ustice Ra2on $Buino, succinctl heldA 1 !"h#1.$t It is note!orth that, "enerall , the rule, that no court has authorit to interfere b in0unction !ith the 0ud"2ents or decrees of a concurrent or coordinate 0urisdiction havin" eBual po!er to "rant the in0unctive relief, is applied in cases, !here no third5part clai2ant is involved, in order to prevent one court fro2 nullif in" the 0ud"2ent or process of another court of the sa2e ran4 or cate"or , a po!er !hich devolves upon the proper appellate court. ### ### ### Dhen the sheriff, actin" be ond the bounds of his authorit , sei/es a stran"er3s propert , the !rit of in0unction, !hich is issued to stop the auction sale of that propert , is not an interference !ith the !rit of e#ecution issued b another court because the !rit of e#ecution !as i2properl i2ple2ented b the sheriff. .nder that !rit, he could attach the propert of the 0ud"2ent debtor. 8e is not authori/ed to lev upon the propert of the third5part clai2ant *Polaris Mar4etin" +orporation vs. Plan, 15 =;&&&, >anuar %%, '(C&, &( S+R$ (), (C< Manila 8erald Publishin" +o., Inc. vs. Ra2os, ?? Phil. (=, ';%-. $n earlier case, 'biera vs. (on. Co&rt o* '""eals, et al., 16 e#plained the doctrine 2ore e#tensivel A 1 !"h#1.$t Co&rts+ ,&risdiction Co&rts !itho&t "o!er to inter*ere b% in-&nction !ith -&dgments or decrees o* a co&rt o* conc&rrent -&risdiction. . No court has po!er to interfere b in0unction !ith the 0ud"2ents or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate 0urisdiction havin" eBual po!er to "rant the relief sou"ht b in0unction. )ame, )ame+ )ame+ /hen a""licable . G For this doctrine to appl , the in0unction issued b one court 2ust interfere !ith the 0ud"2ent or decree issued b another court of eBual or coordinate 0urisdiction and the relief sou"ht b such in0unction 2ust be one !hich could be "ranted b the court !hich rendered the 0ud"2ent or issued the decree. )ame, )ame )ame+ 01ce"tion ,&dgment rendered b% another co&rt in *avor o* a third "erson !ho claims "ro"ert% levied &"on on e1ec&tion. . .nder section 'C of Rule )( a third person !ho clai2s propert levied upon on e#ecution 2a vindicate such clai2 b action. $ 0ud"2ent rendered in his favor 5 declarin" hi2 to be the o!ner of the propert 5 !ould not constitute interference !ith the po!ers or processes of the court !hich rendered the 0ud"2ent to enforce !hich the e#ecution !as levied. lf that be so 5 and it is so because the propert , bein" that of a stran"er, is not sub0ect to lev 5 then an interlocutor order, such as in0unction, upon a clai2 and pri2a facie sho!in" of o!nership b the clai2ant, cannot be considered as such interference either. 01ec&tion+ /here "ro"ert% levied on claimed b% third "erson+ 2'ction2 in section l3, 4&le 56 o* the 4&les o* Co&rt, inter"reted . The ri"ht of a person !ho clai2s to be the o!ner of propert levied upon on e#ecution to file a third5part clai2 !ith the sheriff is not e#clusive, and he 2a file an action to vindicate his clai2 even if the 0ud"2ent creditor files an inde2nit bond in

favor of the sheriff to ans!er for an da2a"es that 2a be suffered b the third part clai2ant. 6 EactionE, as stated in the Rule, !hat is 2eant is a separate and independent action. $pplied to the case at bar, it 2ill have to be held that, contrar to the rationale in the Decision of respondent +ourt, it !as appropriate, as a 2atter of procedure, for S$NTOS, as an ordinar third5part clai2ant, to vindicate his clai2 of o!nership in a separate action under Section 'C of Rule )(. $nd the 0ud"2ent rendered in his favor b Branch X, declarin" hi2 to be the o!ner of the propert , did not as a basic proposition, constitute interference !ith the po!ers or processes of Branch XVII !hich rendered the 0ud"2ent, to enforce !hich the !as levied upon. $nd this is so because propert belon"in" to a stran"er is not ordinaril sub0ect to lev . Dhile it is true that the vehicle in Buestion !as in c&stodia legis, and should not be interfered !ith !ithout the per2ission of the proper +ourt, the propert 2ust be one in !hich the defendant has proprietar interest. Dhere the Sheriff sei/es a stran"er3s propert , the rule does not appl and interference !ith his custod is not interference !ith another +ourt3s Order of attach2ent. 1% 8o!ever, as a 2atter of substance and on the 2erits, the ulti2ate conclusion of respondent +ourt nullif in" the Decision of Branch X per2anentl en0oinin" the auction sale, should be upheld. 1e"all spea4in", it !as not a Estran"er3s propert E that !as levied upon b the Sheriff pursuant to the 0ud"2ent rendered b Branch XVII. The vehicle !as, in fact, re"istered in the na2e of VID$D, one of the 0ud"2ent debtors. $nd !hat is 2ore, the aspect of public service, !ith its effects on the ridin" public, is involved. Dhatever le"al technicalities 2a be invo4ed, !e find the 0ud"2ent of respondent +ourt of $ppeals to be in consonance !ith 0ustice. D8,R,FOR,, as pra ed for b private respondent $braha2 Sibu", the petition for revie! on certiorari filed b $dolfo 1. Santos is dis2issed !ith costs a"ainst the petitioner. SO ORD,R,D. Makasiar, 7&errero and 8e Castro, & ,,., conc&r.1 !"h#1.$t 9eehankee :Chairman;, conc&rs in the res&lt. CASE DIGEST Fa'()* Vicente Vidad !as a dul authori/ed passen"er 0eepne operator. Petitioner $dolfo Santos !as the o!ner of a passen"er 0eep !ithout a certificate of public convenience. Santos transferred his 0eepne to Vidad in an a"ree2ent called the I4abit s ste2J, and Vidad e#ecuted a re5transfer docu2ent presu2abl to be re"istered !hen the decide that the 0eepne be !ithdra!n fro2 the arran"e2ent. On $pril %&, '(&), private respondent $braha2 Sibu" !as bu2ped b the 0eepne driven b Severo 7ra"as. Sibu" filed a co2plaint a"ainst Vidad and 7ra"as !ith 6ranch 9VII of the +ourt of First Instance in Manila. >ud"2ent !as rendered sentencin" the defendants to pa P:;&.%; as actual da2a"es, P),;;; as 2oral da2a"es, and P:;; as attorne Ks fees and costs. On $pril ';, '(&=, the sheriff levied on the 2otor vehicle and scheduled an auction sale. On $pril '', petitioner sub2itted a third5part co2plaint, alle"in" that he !as the real o!ner of the 0eepne . Sibu" sub2itted a bond to the sheriff to save the latter fro2 liabilit if he !ere to proceed !ith the sale and the third5part co2plaint !ould be ulti2atel upheld. On $pril %%, petitioner instituted !ith +FI 6ranch 9 an action for Da2a"es and In0unction, !ith Preli2inar Mandator In0unction a"ainst Sibu", Vidad and the sheriff. The co2plaint !as a2ended to include the bondin" co2pan . On Ma '', 6ranch 9 issued a restrainin" order en0oinin" the sheriff fro2 conductin" the auction sale. On October '=, '(&:, 6ranch 9 upheld petitionerKs o!nership. Sibu" appealed fro2 the decision of 6ranch 9. The +ourt of $ppeals nullified the appealed decision. ))+,)* *'- Dhether the +FI has 0urisdiction to issue an in0unction restrainin" the e#ecution sale of the 0eepne levied upon b a 0ud"2ent creditor in another +FI *%- Dhether the third5part clai2ant has a ri"ht to vindicate his clai2 to the vehicle levied upon throu"h a separate action H,-"* In assertin" his ri"hts of o!nership to the vehicle in Buestion, S$NTOS candidl ad2itted his participation in the ille"al and pernicious practice in the transportation business 4no!n as the 4abit s ste2. $lthou"h S$NTOS, as the 4abit, !as the true o!ner as a"ainst VID$D, the latter, as the re"istered o!nerHoperator and "rantee of the franchise, is directl and pri2aril responsible and liable for the da2a"es caused to SI6.7, the in0ured part , as a conseBuence of the ne"li"ent or careless operation of the vehicle. This rulin" is based on the principle that the operator of record is considered the operator of the vehicle in conte2plation of la! as re"ards the public and third persons even if the vehicle involved in the accident had been sold to another !here such sale had not been approved b the then Public Service +o22ission. The lev on e#ecution a"ainst said vehicle should be enforced so that the 0ud"2ent in the 6R$N+8 9VII +$S, 2a be satisfied, not!ithstandin" the fact that the secret o!nership of the vehicle belon"ed to another. S$NTOS, as the 4abit, should not be allo!ed to defeat the lev on his vehicle and to avoid his responsibilities as a 4abit o!ner for he had led the public to believe that the vehicle belon"ed to VID$D. This is one !a of curbin" the pernicious 4abit s ste2 that facilitates the co22ission of fraud a"ainst the travellin" public. S$NTOS3 re2ed , as the real o!ner of the vehicle, is to "o a"ainst VID$D, the actual operator !ho !as responsible for the accident, for the recover of !hatever da2a"es S$NTOS 2a suffer b reason of the e#ecution. In fact, if S$NTOS, as the 4abit, had been i2pleaded as a part defendant in the 6R$N+8 9VII +$S,, he should be held 0ointl and severall liable !ith VID$D and the driver for da2a"es suffered b SI6.7, as !ell as for e#e2plar da2a"es.

+ontrar to the rationale in the Decision of respondent +ourt, it !as appropriate, as a 2atter of procedure, for S$NTOS, as an ordinar third5part clai2ant, to vindicate his clai2 of o!nership in a separate action under Section 'C of Rule )(. $nd the 0ud"2ent rendered in his favor b 6ranch 9, declarin" hi2 to be the o!ner of the propert , did not as a basic proposition, constitute interference !ith the po!ers or processes of 6ranch 9VII !hich rendered the 0ud"2ent, to enforce !hich the 0eepne !as levied upon. $nd this is so because propert belon"in" to a stran"er is not ordinaril sub0ect to lev . Dhile it is true that the vehicle in Buestion !as in custodia le"is, and should not be interfered !ith !ithout the per2ission of the proper +ourt, the propert 2ust be one in !hich the defendant has proprietar interest. Dhere the Sheriff sei/es a stran"er3s propert , the rule does not appl and interference !ith his custod is not interference !ith another +ourt3s Order of attach2ent. 8o!ever, as a 2atter of substance and on the 2erits, the ulti2ate conclusion of respondent +ourt nullif in" the Decision of 6ranch 9 per2anentl en0oinin" the auction sale, should be upheld. 1e"all spea4in", it !as not a Estran"er3s propert E that !as levied upon b the Sheriff pursuant to the 0ud"2ent rendered b 6ranch 9VII. The vehicle !as, in fact, re"istered in the na2e of VID$D, one of the 0ud"2ent debtors. $nd !hat is 2ore, the aspect of public service, !ith its effects on the ridin" public, is involved. Dhatever le"al technicalities 2a be invo4ed, !e find the 0ud"2ent of respondent +ourt of $ppeals to be in consonance !ith 0ustice.