Sun Life filed a complaint for a sum of money with a prayer for the immediate issuance of a writ of attachment against petitioners Onate and Dino. Respondent Judge granted the prayer and the writ was correspondingly issued. After the summons were eventually served upon petitioners, the latter filed motions to discharge/dissolve the attachment. Meanwhile, Sun Life filed motions for examination of petitioners’ bank accounts. Respondent judge ruled in all the motions in favor of Sun Life. Petitioners moved for reconsideration but were denied.
Whether or not respondent judge erred in allowing the examination of the bank accounts of herein petitioners.
We find both petitions unmeritorious.
It is clear from the foregoing provision that notice need only be given to the garnishee, but the person who is holding property or credits belonging to the defendant. The provision does not require that notice be furnished the defendant himself, except when there is a need to examine said defendant “for the purpose of giving information respecting his property.
Furthermore, Section 10 Rule 57 is not incompatible with Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, “An Act Prohibiting Disclosure or Inquiry Into, Deposits With Any Banking Institution and Providing Penalty Therefore,” for Section 2 therefore provides an exception “in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.”
The examination of the bank records is not a fishing expedition, but rather a method by which Sun Life could trace the proceeds of the check it paid to petitioners.