179. Sura vs. Martin Non-Imprisonment for DebtGR L-25091, 29 November 1968Capistrano (J)

Facts: In a civil action, Vicente Martin Sr. was ordered to recognize Vicente Martin Jr. as his natural son; to provide support until the latter reaches the age of majority, and to pay the attorney's fees. From the judgment, Martin Sr. appealed to CA. CA affirmed said decision. CFI of Negros Occidental, hence, issued a writ of execution, same being forwarded to the Provincial Sheriff. The writ returned unsatisfied. The Sheriff stated that "the judgment debtor is jobless, and is residing in the dwelling house and in the company of his widowed mother, at Tanjay, this province. Debtor has no leviable property; he is even supported by his mother. Hereto attached is the certificate of insolvency issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Tanjay Negros Oriental, where debtor legally resides." Sura prayed that Vicente Martin Sr. be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for failure to satisfy the writ. The Court granted such and ordered Vicente Martin Sr. to fulfill the decision within 30 days or he shall be held in contempt. Again, Vicente Martin Sr. failed to satisfy the said order. Thus, he was arrested. This prompted Martin Sr.'s counsel to file a notice of appeal, and at the same time prayed for the fixing of a bond . The Court ordered the confinement of Martin Sr. to the provincial jail, and fixed bail at P7,000. On appeal, Martin Sr. argues that his imprisonment for failure to satisfy the decision requiring him to support his natural son, due to insolvency, violates his constitutional right against imprisonment for debt.

Issue: WON the arrest of Martin Sr. is unconstitutional

Held: The sheriff's return shows that the judgment debtor was insolvent. Hence the orders of his arrest and imprisonment for failure to satisfy the judgment, in effect, authorized his imprisonment for debt in violation of the Constitution.

The orders for the arrest and imprisonment of Vicente Martin, Sr., for contempt due to failure to satisfy the judgment were illegal, also, because: (1) The writ of execution was a direct order to the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it was directed, and not an order to the judgment debtor. In view thereof, the judgment debtor could not, in the very nature of things, have committed disobedience to the writ. (2) The disobedience to a judgment considered as indirect contempt does not refer to a judgment which is a final disposition of the case and which is declaratory of the rights of the parties, but to a special judgment, a judgment "which requires the performance of any other act than the payment of money, or the sale or delivery of real or personal property." Any order or judgment of a court finally disposing of an action should be enforced by ordinary execution proceedings, except special judgments which should be executed by contempt proceedings.