FACTS:

The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. ("Perla") seeking to annul the orders issued by the trial court. On June 1, 1976, a Cimarron PUJ owned by Nelia Enriquez collided with a private jeep owned by Calixto Palmes. As a result of the collision, Calixto Palmes died and Adeudatus Borbon sustained injuries.

Primitiva Palmes, the widow of Calixto Palmes, and Honorato Borbon, Sr., the father of Adeudatus Borbon, filed a complaint against Cosme Casas and Nelia Enriquez for damages. The court rendered a decision in favor of Primitiva Palmes, ordering Nelia Enriquez to pay damages. The judgment became final and a writ of execution was issued, which was later returned unsatisfied.

During the examination of Nelia Enriquez, she revealed that the Cimarron PUJ was covered by a third-party liability insurance policy issued by Perla. Primitiva Palmes subsequently filed a motion for garnishment against Perla's insurance policy, which the trial court granted.

Perla filed a motion for reconsideration and quashal of the writ of garnishment, arguing that it was not a party to the case and that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over its person. The trial court denied the motion and an order for the issuance of an alias writ of garnishment was issued.

Perla then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the third-party liability insurance policy issued by petitioner Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. can be subjected to garnishment.

2. Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over petitioner Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc.

RULING:

1. Yes. The court held that the third-party liability insurance policy issued by petitioner Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. can be subjected to garnishment. The court found that the garnishment was based on the testimony of the judgment debtor during the examination, stating that the Cimarron PUJ was covered by a third-party liability insurance policy issued by Perla. The court ruled that the insurance contract can be garnished to satisfy the judgment in Civil Case No. R-15391.

2. No. The court held that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over petitioner Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. The court reasoned that Perla was not a party to the case and jurisdiction over its person was never acquired by the trial court through service of summons or any other process.

PRINCIPLES:

• Insurance contracts can be subjected to garnishment to satisfy a judgment.

• The court must acquire jurisdiction over a party through proper service of summons or other legal process.