Fact:
Petitioner, to satisfy the judgment award to the private respondent, issued a check under the name of the executing officer sheriff. The said sheriff then withdrew the check and absconded. The private respondent filed a writ to garish the bank of the petitioner which the court granted. The petitioner appeal contending that they have satisfied the said judgement by issuing the said check to the sheriff who absconded and they should not be penalized on the said act of the sheriff. The CA denied the appeal of the petitioner, hence this case.
Issue:
Whether the Petitioner satisfied the judgement payment by issuing a check named to the absconding sheriff.
Held:
No, Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it. Thus, payment must be made to the obligee himself or to an agent having authority, express or implied, to receive the particular payment. The payment made by the petitioner to the absconding sheriff was not in cash or legal tender but in checks. The checks were not payable to Amelia Tan or Able Printing Press but to the absconding sheriff. In the absence of an agreement, either express or implied, payment means the discharge of a debt or obligation in money and unless the parties so agree, a debtor has no rights, except at his own peril, to substitute something in lieu of cash as medium of payment of his debt. Consequently, unless authorized to do so by law or by consent of the obligee a public officer has no authority to accept anything other than money in payment of an obligation under a judgment being executed. Strictly speaking, the acceptance by the sheriff of the petitioner’s checks, in the case at bar, does not, per se, operate as a discharge of the judgment debt.
adrianantazo.com 